A Study of Language Learning Style and Teaching

Style Preferences of Hong Kong Community College
Students and Teachers in English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) Contexts
 
 
 
 
A thesis presented to the University of Canterbury in fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education

Wai Lam Heidi Wong

School of Teacher Education
College of Education, Health and Human Development
University of Canterbury
2015
 Attestation of Authorship

I hereby declare that this submission is all my own work and that, to the very

best of my knowledge and understanding, it contains no material previously published

or written by another person, nor any material which has been submitted for the award

of any other degree or diploma of a university or other institution of higher learning.

  i  
 Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

supervisors, Professor Angus Hikairo Macfarlane and Professor Garry Hornby for

their excellent supervision and careful guidance in the past four years. Thanks to

Professor Macfarlane for sharing the educational experience of the Māori learners and

raising my awareness of culturally inclusive education. Professor Hornby provides me

with invaluable learning experience in New Zealand and I greatly appreciate his

contribution to this thesis.

I am grateful to my local supervisor in Hong Kong, Dr Lap Tuen Wong, for his

inspiration and endless encouragement throughout my academic life. Without his

tremendous support in the past eleven years, my dream of becoming a tertiary teacher

and completing my PhD would not have come true.

I would also acknowledge the principals and the heads of departments of the

community colleges who permitted the research. I thank all of my research

participants who have contributed to this study.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their

unconditional love and support throughout my life.

  ii  
 Abstract

In English language classrooms, students use different approaches to carry out

English learning tasks. Language learning styles, which generally refers to learners’

preferred modes of language learning, have been widely researched and discussed in

the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and educational psychology.

Understanding the learning style preferences of students can help teachers cope with

students’ course-related learning difficulties and ultimately help alleviate their

frustration levels. Another important concept is teaching styles, which refers to

teachers’ classroom behaviour based on their teaching beliefs, is commonly

associated with learning styles in language education research. Teaching style is vital

for providing students with good learning experiences and improving students’

academic outcomes.

This study explores the English language learning and teaching style preferences

in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classrooms at community college level in

Hong Kong. The present study adopted a mixed method approach involving both

questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews, in attempt to investigate the

factors influencing learning styles and teaching styles, and the relationship between

them. It aims at providing valuable information for curriculum design and teacher

training in order to offer Hong Kong community college students adequate and

effective academic English language learning support.

A total of 637 students and 10 EAP teachers from two community colleges in

  iii  
Hong Kong participated in this research. The quantitative and qualitative findings of

this study show that the community college students in EAP classrooms have multiple

learning style preferences. A plethora of factors such as cultural and educational

backgrounds are related to their development of learning styles. This research also

explores the nature of teaching styles and the possible variables, including students’

English language proficiency and their learning styles, influencing their teaching

styles in EAP classrooms.

This study attempts to explain the relationship between learning styles and

teaching styles in English language classrooms with reference to the interview

findings from both students and teachers. It is argued that both learning styles and

teaching styles are flexible and have a reciprocal influence on each other. Learners

may adjust their learning styles in order to meet academic requirements, while

teachers may adjust their teaching styles so as to provide students with an affective

learning environment. When learners and teachers have more interaction with each

other, their styles may become similar to each other. This study also identifies the

importance of improving learners’ flexibility for developing learning styles and

accepting unfamiliar teaching styles.

Based on the evidence drawn from this research, educational implications on

teaching and learning in EAP classrooms, and recommendations for future research

on learning styles and teaching styles are proposed.

  iv  
 Table of Contents

Attestation of Authorship i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents v
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
List of Abbreviations xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Preliminary comments on learning style and teaching style research in 1
second/foreign language education
1.3 Background to the study 4
1.3.1 The status of English language in Hong Kong 4
1.3.2 Hong Kong education system 6
1.3.3 Community college education in Hong Kong 7
1.3.4 English language teaching in Hong Kong community college classrooms 9
1.3.5 Teaching and learning English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Hong 11
Kong tertiary classrooms
1.4 Rationale and objectives of the research 15
1.5 Overview of the research 18

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 20

2.1 Overview 20
2.2 Learning styles 21
2.2.1 Definitions 21
2.2.2 Theoretical models and instruments 30
2.2.3 Learning styles and cultures 49
[Link] Hong Kong Chinese culture and learning 54
[Link] Previous research on Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese students’ 59
English language learning style preferences

  v  
 2.2.4 Learning styles and educational background 63
2.2.5 Learning styles and gender 64
2.2.6 Summary 66
2.3 Teaching styles 68
2.3.1 Definitions 68
2.3.2 Relevant research on teaching styles 70
2.3.3 Hong Kong Chinese teaching culture 78
2.3.4 Summary 80
2.4 The relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in second/foreign 81
language education
2.4.1 Motivation theory: Matching learning styles and teaching styles 82
2.4.2 Opponents of the matching theory 84
2.4.3 Summary 88
2.5 Chapter summary 89

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 92

3.1 Overview 92
3.2 Conceptual framework 93
3.3 Research questions 95
3.4 Research methods 96
3.4.1 Quantitative research methodology 97
3.4.2 Qualitative research methodology 99
3.5 Research setting and participants 99
3.6 Research procedures 101
3.6.1 Ethical considerations 101
3.6.2 Research design 102
3.7 Research instruments 103
3.7.1 Data collection from student participants 103
3.7.2 Data collection from teacher participants 110
3.8 Data analysis and presentation 112
3.8.1 Quantitative data analysis 112
3.8.2 Qualitative data analysis 114
3.9 Validity and reliability 116

  vi  
3.10 Chapter summary 121

Chapter 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Results 122

4.1 Overview 122
4.2 Quantitative results 123
4.2.1 Students’ questionnaire survey results 123
[Link] Demographic information on student participants 123
[Link] Students’ learning style preferences 126
[Link] Learning style preferences and gender, year of study, programme, 128
major field and educational background
4.2.2 Teachers’ questionnaire survey results 135
4.3 Qualitative results 136
4.3.1 EAP students’ English language learning styles 136
[Link] Factors influencing EAP students’ English language learning styles 137
[Link] Students’ perceptions about the relationship between learning styles 170
and teaching styles
4.3.2 EAP teachers’ English language teaching styles 175
[Link] English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community college 175
teachers in EAP contexts
[Link] Factors influencing EAP teachers’ teaching style preferences 179
[Link] EAP teachers’ perceptions about the relationship between learning 194
styles and teaching styles
4.4 Chapter summary 197

Chapter 5: Discussion 199

5.1 Overview 199
5.2 Hong Kong community college students’ English language learning style 200
preferences in EAP contexts
5.3 Factors influencing Hong Kong community college students’ language learning 207
style preferences in EAP contexts
5.3.1 Gender 207
5.3.2 Year of study 209
5.3.3 Type of study programmes 210

  vii  
 5.3.4 Study fields 212
5.3.5 Educational background 214
5.3.6 English language proficiency 221
5.3.7 Educational context and nature of learning tasks 222
5.3.8 Cultural beliefs and values 231
5.3.9 Teaching styles of students’ former English teachers 238
5.3.10 Summary 240
5.4 English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community college teachers in 242
EAP contexts
5.5 Factors influencing Hong Kong community college teachers’ language teaching 245
styles in EAP contexts
5.5.1 Teachers’ personal learning style preferences 247
5.5.2 Teachers’ cultural and educational backgrounds 248
5.5.3 Students’ learning style preferences 250
5.5.4 Students’ English language proficiency 251
5.5.5 Teaching areas, syllabi and course materials of EAP courses 252
5.5.6 Learning and teaching culture of the institution 254
5.5.7 Summary 255
5.6 Relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong Kong EAP 256
classrooms at community college level
5.7 Chapter summary 263

Chapter 6: Conclusion 265

6.1 Overview 265
6.2 Educational implications 265
6.3 Contributions of the research 273
6.4 Limitations of the research 276
6.5 Recommendations for future research 279
6.6 Chapter summary 281

References 283

  viii  
Appendices 304
Appendix A: Information letter and consent form for students 305
Appendix B: Information letter and consent form for teachers 307
Appendix C: Learning style preference questionnaire for students 309
Appendix D: Teaching style preference questionnaire for teachers 313
Appendix E: Prompt interview questions for students 317
Appendix F: Prompt interview questions for teachers 318
Appendix G: Reliability test results of learning style preference questionnaire for 319
students
Appendix H: Means, standard deviations, and the one-way ANOVA results of 324
students’ learning style preferences according to different factors

  ix  
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Willing’s learning style categories 41

Table 2.2 Oxford’s learning style categories 43
Table 2.3 Reid’s perceptual learning styles 46
Table 2.4 Grasha’s five teaching style categories 73
Table 3.1 The Likert scale of the learning style questionnaire and the teaching style 113
questionnaire
Table 3.2 The scales of major, minor and negative learning/teaching styles 114
Table 4.1 Demographic information: Gender, place of origin, and first and second 124
languages
Table 4.2 Demographic information: Year of study and programme 124
Table 4.3 Demographic information: Major fields 125
Table 4.4 Demographic information: Type of secondary school attended and 125
qualifications on entry
Table 4.5 Students’ learning style preferences 126
Table 5.1. An example of EAP curriculum and syllabi 253

  x  
 List of Figures
 
Figure 3.1 Conceptual framework of this study 94
Figure 3.2 The procedures of analyzing data 114
Figure 4.1 Students’ learning style preferences: Major, minor and negative 126
Figure 5.1 Different factors influencing EAP students’ learning style preferences 242
Figure 5.2 Internal and external factors influencing EAP teachers’ teaching Styles 246
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  xi  
 List of Abbreviations

AD Associate Degree
ANOVA Analysis of variance
CLT Communicative language teaching
CMI Chinese as a medium of instruction
EAP English for Academic Purposes
EFL English as a foreign language
EMI English as a medium of instruction
EOP English for Occupational Purposes
ESL English as a second language
HD Higher Diploma
HKALE Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination
HKDSE Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination
LSI Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
LSQ Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire
MBTI Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
MI Multiple intelligences
PLSPQ Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire
SLA Second language acquisition
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
VAK Visual-auditory-kinaesthetic learning style model
VARK Visual, aural, read/write, and kinaesthetic
ZPD Zone of proximal development

  xii  
Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Overview

This chapter aims at clarifying the context and describing the rationale and

objectives of this research. It starts with an introduction to the existing learning style

and teaching style research and is then followed by background information on the

research – English language education in Hong Kong at community college level. The

rationale and objectives of this research are then presented. This chapter also provides

an overview of the thesis structure.

1.2 Preliminary comments on learning style and teaching style research in

second/foreign language education

In English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) classrooms, learners apply

variable approaches the ways in which they approach different English tasks.

Individual differences are commonly studied in the area of second language

acquisition (SLA). SLA researchers generally believe that understanding learners’

individual differences can enhance language learning.

Language learning style preferences, which generally refer to learners’ preferred

mode of language learning, have been widely researched and discussed in the field of

SLA and educational psychology. Many researchers believe that learners have certain

  1
learning styles because of their cultural beliefs and educational backgrounds. For

instance, Chinese students are commonly featured as group learners under the

influence of collectivist culture. Hong Kong students are also characterized as rote

learners under the examination-oriented education system. Dunn (1990) points out

that teacher awareness of the preferred learning styles of students can help teachers

understand and cope with students’ course-related learning difficulties and ultimately

help alleviate their frustration levels. Chang (2003) believes that understanding the

preferred learning styles of students has a resounding impact on curriculum design,

teacher training, material development and student orientation. Macfarlane (2004)

contends that polarised communication exists when teachers misunderstand or lack

interest in students’ educational backgrounds, and that may eventually harm the

relationship between teachers and students. Investigating students’ language learning

style preferences provides teachers with useful information on developing students’

language learning strategies, which are directly related to language achievement.

The term teaching styles refers to the classroom behaviour associated with the

teaching beliefs of an instructor, and is not restricted to a teaching method or a

technique (Cooper, 2001; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Jarvis, 2004). Teaching styles

can affect how teachers present information, interact with students, and supervise

coursework. Many researchers (Giles et al., 2006; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Razak,

Ahmad, & Shad, 2007; Soliven, 2003) point out that teaching style is vital for

providing students with good learning experiences and enhancing students’ academic

outcomes. However, there is limited educational research identifying teaching styles,

  2
especially in second/foreign language education. In addition, very few studies have

been carried out to investigate different variables, such as language teachers’

educational and cultural background, related to language teachers’ teaching styles,

compared with the learning style literature.

Some researchers (Cotazzi, 1990; Ehrman, 1996; Felder, 1995; Oxford,

Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992; Jones, 1997; Littlewood, Liu, & Yu, 1996; Reid,

1987; Peacock, 2001; Stebbins, 1995; Tuan, 2011) propose that a mismatch between

teacher instructional styles and students’ language learning styles may lead to

negative impacts on students’ language learning. Similarly, intensive research

(Giles et al., 2006; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Razak, Ahmad & Shad, 2007; Soliven,

2003) suggests that teaching styles influence students’ learning styles and language

learning outcomes. Some (Claxton & Murrell, 1988; Felder, 1995; Oxford & Lavine,

1991) also argue that a deliberate mismatch between teaching styles and learning

styles may bring some benefits to students, such as helping learners to develop

different learning styles and allowing learners to cope with difficulties which they

may face in future. The relationship between learning styles and teaching styles is

an aspect on which there appears to have been little research conducted. It is therefore

important to investigate the relationship between these two imperatives in order to

maximize the effectiveness of learning in the language classroom.

Although there is a range of literature exploring ESL/EFL students’ English

language learning style preferences, there appears to be very limited research into

language learning style preferences in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts,

  3
and in particularly at community college level. In addition, very little research has

been done investigating the teaching styles of ESL/EFL teachers. This study,

therefore, aims at investigating English language learning styles and teaching styles of

Hong Kong community college students and teachers in EAP contexts. The

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in the language classroom

will also be explored.

1.3 Background to the study

1.3.1 The status of English language in Hong Kong

In 1858, Hong Kong became a British colony where English was an official

language. Chinese was not given official status until 1974, despite the fact that most

people in Hong Kong had Chinese as their mother tongue (Flowerdew, 1999;

Postiglione, 2001; Tsui & Bunton, 2000). English has been primarily used in

official and formal situations, especially in the areas of education, government and

business (Evans, 1996; Flowerdew, 1999), while Chinese was mainly used for daily

and informal communication, and was described as “overwhelmingly the language of

the home, the street, and the entertainment media” (Education Commission, 1994, p.

15). After the transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997, English remains an official

language and is still highly promoted by the government, for maintenance of the

international status of the economy.

Although English is taught as a second language at the very early stages of

  4
education, and is used as the medium of instruction in designated English-medium

primary and secondary schools, and all tertiary institutions, Hong Kong students have

very limited opportunity to use English outside the classroom. In 1998, the

government introduced mother-tongue education (using Chinese as the medium of

instruction) in secondary schools and most of the English-medium secondary schools

were required to change their medium of instruction policy. The introduction of

mother tongue education in secondary schools further reduced students’ exposure to

English. English is, therefore, often functionally regarded as a foreign language to

most of the people, when discussing learning English in Hong Kong context.

In 2010, the government introduced a new medium of instruction policy,

allowing schools to choose the medium of instruction arrangements (i.e. using English

as a medium of instruction in some classes and/or in some subjects) according to

students’ language proficiency. Nevertheless, most secondary school classrooms

still use Chinese as a medium of instruction as many students’ English language

proficiency cannot satisfy the student ability criterion of using English as a medium of

instruction set by the government.

The problem of declining English language standards frustrates many university

lecturers. Hyland’s (1997) study investigating undergraduates’ English language

learning reveals that undergraduate students, who have attended Chinese-medium

secondary schools have a strong need for language support, especially on the

productive skills of writing and speaking and the acquisition of professional

vocabulary. His study also indicates that many undergraduates not only need language

  5
support at university, but also require academic-oriented language support rather than

general English. Evans and Green (2007) conducted similar research on the needs of

teaching academic English after the implementation of mother-tongue education.

Their study also reveals that students from Chinese-medium secondary schools

experience significant language problems when they proceed to an English-medium

learning environment, especially in the area of academic listening. The problem is

becoming more serious with the increasing numbers of students from

Chinese-medium secondary schools enrolling at English-medium universities. Their

research further confirms Hyland’s (1997) conclusion that tertiary institutions in

Hong Kong are required to provide students with considerable language support,

particularly on the acquisition of academic literacy.

1.3.2 Education system in Hong Kong

Since Hong Kong was a British colony, its education system modelled the

United Kingdom system. Until 2009, it followed the “3+3+2+3” model, which

included three-year compulsory lower secondary education, and the next seven-year

optional education (two-year upper secondary education, two-year matriculation

education, and three-year university education). In 2009, the model was then replaced

by another “3+3+4” model, with free six-year secondary education and optional

four-year university education (Information Services Department, 2015; Zhan, Bray,

Wang, Lykins, & Kwo, 2013).

Aiming at reducing students’ examination pressure and promoting all-round

  6
development, the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) (for Form

6 / Grade 12 students) replaced the old system – the Hong Kong Certificate of

Education Examination (HKCEE) for Form 5 / Grade 11 students and the Hong Kong

Advanced Level Examination (HKALE) for Form 7 / Grade 13 students (Curriculum

Development Council, 2006). The new system requires students to take four

compulsory subjects – English language, Chinese language, Mathematics and Liberal

Studies, plus two or three electives. Although the Education Bureau stated that the

enrolment rate in tertiary education is approximately 60%, only 18% of secondary

school graduates could gain admission to government-funded universities every year

(Lee, 2013). Due to the fierce competition, those students who could not gain

admission to the government-funded institutions have to choose the alternatives –

studying at self-financed community colleges / universities or studying abroad.

1.3.3 Community college education in Hong Kong

Community college education has a long history in the United States of America

for the “provision of lower division university courses, and provision of education and

training in different occupational fields for direct into the labour force” (Skolnik,

2004, p. 42). In response to the needs of society, which requires an educated and

competent workforce to maintain international financial standing and strengthen the

knowledge-based society, the Hong Kong government started to increase

postsecondary education opportunities by importing the American community college

model, which was adapted in order to cater for the actual needs of Hong Kong

  7
society.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the earliest community colleges

were established by local universities. Adapted from the American community

college system, community college education in Hong Kong is distinctive in terms of

the purposes of establishment, programmes and curriculum design, and educational

pathways. Community colleges were set up to provide secondary school leavers

who perform unsatisfactorily in public examinations with more opportunities to gain

entry to local or overseas universities after completion of sub-degree programmes.

Another important purpose is to equip students with sufficient workplace knowledge

and professional skills to support their future employment.

To achieve those purposes, community colleges mainly offer Associate

Degrees (AD) and Higher Diplomas (HD) to Form 7 graduates of the old system and

Form 6 graduates of the new system. At the same time, Pre-associate Degrees and

Foundation Diplomas are also offered to those who could not satisfy the minimum

entry requirements of AD and HD programmes in order to prepare for their

articulation to the AD or HD programmes smoothly after completion. The AD

originated from the American community college system, whereas the HD are

common sub-degree level qualifications in British and Commonwealth higher

education systems. In terms of curriculum design, the AD are academically-oriented

and aim at preparing students for further studies. The curriculum of AD concentrate

on generic skill training, such as languages, basic computer skills and quantitative

skills. The HD emphasize professional training and the curriculum is more

  8
vocationally-oriented. A high proportion of the curriculum is on the training of a

specific professional discipline or workplace skills, such as Accounting, Electrical

Engineering and Tourism Management. Although community colleges in Hong

Kong prepare students well for both their academic and career development, most AD

and HD graduates desire to pursue university studies after completion of their

programmes. Nevertheless, as the number of Bachelor’s level of university places in

local government-funded universities is limited, a high percentage of students have to

study off-shore Bachelor’s programmes offered by overseas universities.

1.3.4 English language teaching in Hong Kong community college classrooms

As many local and overseas English-medium universities require students to

attain a good level of English, community colleges in Hong Kong put significant

emphasis on English language education. All community college students are required

to take English language courses in every semester. To fulfil the local or overseas

university admission requirements, community college graduates have to achieve

good English results. Common English courses in community colleges include

General English, English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and English for Professional

Purposes. Those courses aim at consolidating students’ English language foundation,

and prepare them well for their academic and career development. General English

mainly covers four key language skills – speaking, listening, reading and writing for

general communicative purposes. It aims at helping students to lay a solid language

foundation that leads them on to academic English courses and/or vocational English

  9
courses. Most of the General English courses at community college level include the

components of academic English in order to prepare students for further academic

studies.

EAP courses mainly cover study skills which students need to use in tertiary

studies, for example, academic writing, listening and note-taking, referencing skills

and presentation skills. Some community colleges offer subject-specific EAP

courses that teach the language needed for a particular academic discipline, for

example, Physical Science and Social Sciences, while some offer EAP courses with

general academic content that involve the language skills required for all academic

fields. Similar to the EAP courses at university level, the courses comprise the

teaching of general English skills and academic English skills.

Most community colleges in Hong Kong offer English for general academic

purposes, as students at community college level generally have limited knowledge of

the subject content of the courses they wish to pursue. In addition many of them lack

the basic language skills of using English in academic studies, compared to students

in conventional universities. EAP courses are highly emphasized in community

colleges and most of the colleges require students to spend more than two semesters

taking EAP courses.

In Hong Kong English language classrooms at community college level, the

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach is usually adopted.

Communicative language teaching is an approach to second or foreign language

teaching which aims at developing communicative competence in language learning

  10
(Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992). Different from traditional English language teaching

which mainly focuses on grammar teaching, the CLT approach concentrates on

processes of communication, such as using appropriate language in different contexts,

and using language to perform different tasks in different situations, for example,

collecting and presenting information. Classroom activities and materials usually

emphasize the meaning of what learners are saying or writing (meaning-focused)

rather than on a particular language form. A variety of language structures rather than

one language structure is used in the activities and learners are involved in pair or

group work so that they can negotiate meaning using English. In Hong Kong

community college classrooms, integrated English language skills are taught through

a variety of themes, for instance, education, science and technology. Common

classroom learning activities include class discussions, individual and group

presentations, and report writing. Through meaning-focused communicative tasks,

students are able to use English in appropriate situations, especially in academic

studies, career-focused studies, and in workplace oriented studies.

1.3.5 Teaching and learning English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Hong Kong

tertiary classrooms

In Hong Kong, there is limited research related to the teaching and learning of

EAP of tertiary students, though many language educators emphasize the importance

of learning EAP. Additionally, most EAP research studies in Hong Kong take place at

universities, and a paucity of research has been published on teaching and learning

  11
EAP at community college level in Hong Kong.

EAP courses in the Hong Kong context are regarded as hybrids of ESL and EAP

programmes. These courses include the teaching of academic language skills, such as

writing academic essays, delivering presentations and note-taking in lectures. At the

same time, basic language skills, grammar and vocabulary are also incorporated in the

courses. Lu and Julien (2001) explain that many students in Hong Kong have

relatively low English proficiency and lack the necessary language knowledge and

skills for tertiary studies. However, EAP is supposed to be designed for non-native

English speakers who have sufficient language skills to enhance their language ability

in order to tackle courses in English-medium learning environments (Jordan, 1997).

Many tertiary students in Hong Kong cannot meet the minimal required English

proficiency for tertiary studies and thus, have difficulty in acquiring academic English

skills. In order to tackle the problem of low language proficiency, the EAP curriculum

has to incorporate a remedial language component to the programmes by re-teaching

basic English grammar, writing and listening skills, which students should have

acquired at pre-tertiary levels.

Hyland (1997) investigated the necessity for EAP of undergraduates from eight

disciplines at five tertiary institutions in Hong Kong. His research revealed that

students understand the value of EAP classes and believe proficiency in the English

language is an important factor for achieving academic success in an English-medium

learning environment. It also shows that most students experienced problems with

academic writing.

  12
 A recent study conducted by Evans and Green (2007) indicates that most Hong

Kong tertiary students have problems with receptive and productive vocabulary in

English. Another problem students were facing was difficulties in learning

independently. They suggest EAP programme designers put more emphasis on the

teaching of subject-specific vocabulary. They also comment that teachers should use a

task-based approach and content-driven framework in order to accommodate student

needs. They conclude that inadequate basic language competence causes students to

struggle to deal with complex macro-linguistic tasks. The problem is likely to be

intensified with the increasing number of students who are taught in Chinese-medium

secondary schools as it was suggested that these students experience more language

problems than those who study in English-medium secondary schools, particularly in

the area of academic writing. That means that the change in secondary-level medium

of instruction may increase the importance of enhancing academic literacy.

The more recent study conducted by Evans and Morrison (2011) shows that

first-year university students in Hong Kong face language difficulty when they have

to adapt to the new learning environment where English is used as the medium of

instruction. The student participants of the research commented that they needed

assistance with academic writing (i.e. style, cohesion, and grammar) and technical

vocabulary (in lectures and readings). Many also indicated that disciplinary

acculturation is a long journey for them in order to succeed in academia.

Different from the nature of universities, community colleges in Hong Kong

were established to provide opportunities for senior secondary school leavers, who

  13
could not reach the benchmark for university entry and gain recognized qualifications,

to enter trained or skilled work. Community colleges are also known for offering open

access and comprehensiveness in course and programme offerings (Vaughan, 2006).

One of the biggest challenges community college EAP teachers have is to cater for

the educational needs of different students because they offer credit and non-credit

courses to a broad constituency (Chan, Lau, Wong, & Mak, 2010). Despite the fact

that community colleges can prepare students well for their academic and career

pathways, many community college students in Hong Kong intend to continue their

studies at local or overseas universities after completion of community college

education. Community college students, therefore, have to attain a satisfactory level

of academic English proficiency in order to fulfil university admission requirements.

Notwithstanding the growing number of community college students, there is

still very limited research exploring Hong Kong students’ academic English language

learning at community college level. Community college students in Hong Kong are

distinctive in terms of their language learning needs, education background, and

English language proficiency. As the qualifications offered by community colleges in

Hong Kong provide students with multiple pathways, students have different goals of

English language learning. For instance, some may wish to enter local universities,

while some prefer to enter the workforce after graduation. Therefore, students may

have different learning goals when studying EAP. Community colleges in Hong Kong

admit students from different education backgrounds. Although most students are

local secondary school graduates, some students have graduated from international

  14
schools or overseas institutions. Additionally, some students studied in

Chinese-medium local secondary schools, whereas others have graduated from

English-medium local secondary schools. Obviously, they were educated under

different academic culture. Community college students in Hong Kong generally have

lower English language proficiency than university students.

It is clear that there is a pressing need to investigate learning styles and teaching

styles in EAP classrooms at Hong Kong community colleges. It will be useful for

curriculum planners and teachers to maximize students’ learning experiences and

academic outcomes by understanding the nature of learning styles and teaching styles,

and the relationship between them in the English language classrooms, especially in

the teaching and learning of EAP.

1.4 Rationale and objectives of the research

This study is mainly exploratory and descriptive, and aims at investigating

English language learning and teaching style preferences in Hong Kong EAP

classrooms at community college level. This study is significant for the contribution

to the research fields of learning style and teaching style preferences of ESL/EFL

students and teachers, as well as for the development of community college English

language education in Hong Kong.

The existing literature, which mainly focuses on ESL/EFL students’ English

language learning styles at university level, may not fully reflect the true picture of

  15
community college English language classrooms in Hong Kong, due to differences in

English language proficiency and academic background. ESL/EFL students from

different backgrounds may differ from others significantly in their learning style

preferences (Reid, 1987). Therefore, the teaching implications suggested by the

previous research may not be applicable at community college level. This study is

designed to provide insights for English language classrooms at community college

level in Hong Kong.

Most of the research investigates learning styles of ESL/EFL students who learn

English for general purposes, but not for academic purposes. DeCapua and

Wintergerst (2005) suggest that learners may have different learning styles depending

on what type of ESL courses learners they were enrolled in, for example, workplace

English, academic English, or general English. This study can provide baseline data

for future research on language learning style preferences of EAP students.

Additionally, despite many native English researchers having conducted research

related to Chinese students’ English language learning style preferences, nearly all of

them did not note differences in Chinese culture in different parts of China, which

may cause differences in language learning styles. For instance, students studying in

Hong Kong or Taiwan may have different language learning styles from mainland

Chinese students as the social and academic cultures may be different. Research

related to Hong Kong students’ language learning styles, and their relationship with

teaching styles of Hong Kong teachers is limited.

Moreover, although teaching styles have been investigated widely in general

  16
education, there is still a lack of research into the construct of ESL/EFL teaching

styles (Akbari & Allvar, 2010; Razak et al., 2007), especially in the teaching of EAP

at community college level. There is also limited literature on possible variables

related to language teaching styles, such as teachers’ cultural and educational

background. Teaching style has an important influence on students’ learning

experiences and is an important factor in determining the extent of students’ learning

as it provides “vital human connection between the content and the environment and

the learners” (Heimluch & Norland, 1994, p. 109).

Furthermore, the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles is an

important and under-researched aspect of second/foreign language learning (Peacock,

2001). Although there are some controversies towards the effects of

matching/mismatching learning styles and teaching styles, most of the research

conducted is not related to second language learning. Also, different from the research

participants who learnt in their first language, many community college students in

Hong Kong have to adapt to a completely new language learning environment (from

secondary education to tertiary education). It is clear that there is an urgent need to

research the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong Kong

community college English language classrooms.

This study, therefore, aims to fill a gap in the research literature in the area of

academic English language learning and teaching styles at community college level

and to provide valuable information for curriculum design and teacher training in

order to offer Hong Kong community college students adequate and effective

  17
academic English language learning support. The findings could also help teachers to

adopt suitable teaching strategies with reference to students’ needs.

The objectives of this research are as follows:

1. To identify the English language learning style and teaching style preferences of

Hong Kong community college students and teachers in EAP classrooms

2. To examine how different variables influence students’ English language learning

style and teaching style preferences in EAP classrooms;

3. To examine the relationship between teaching styles and learning styles in EAP

classrooms, at community college level in Hong Kong;

4. To provide baseline data which will be useful in future research on the language

learning styles and teaching styles in Hong Kong English language classrooms at

the tertiary level; and

5. To provide insights into English language education at community college level in

Hong Kong.

1.5 Overview of the research

This thesis has six chapters. This chapter has provided an introduction to the

research scope, the contextual background of English language education in

community college education in Hong Kong, and the rationale and objectives of this

research. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature and consists of three parts:

educational research on (i) learning styles, (ii) teaching styles, and (iii) the

  18
relationship between learning styles and teaching styles. Chapter 3 describes the

research methodology of this study, including formulation of the conceptual

framework, research questions, research methods and procedures, data analysis and

presentation, and a discussion of the validity and reliability of the research

instruments. In Chapter 4 the quantitative and qualitative data collected in Hong Kong

community college classrooms will be presented. Chapter 5 discusses and interprets

the data collected with reference to the previous literature. Chapter 6 provides

educational implications for language teachers in community colleges and concludes

with the discussion of its major contributions, as well as reflections on the limitations

of this study and suggestions for future research.

  19
Chapter 2: Review of Literature

2.1 Overview

Chapter 1 has outlined the research background, objectives and the scope of

research. This chapter aims at reviewing literature concerning language learning

styles, teaching styles, the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles,

and English learning and teaching in the Hong Kong tertiary context.

The first section sets out the theoretical underpinnings for learning style research

by examining the definitions, theoretical models and classifications of learning style,

drawing from general psychology and the language education research fields. After

looking at the definitions and classifications, it reviews important factors related to

learning styles, such as cultural and educational background, in accordance with the

specific context for this research – English language classrooms at the tertiary level in

Hong Kong.

The second section focuses on teaching style research. It first defines teaching

style by drawing on a wide range of research, which is followed by a review of

teaching style classifications and related research regarding the general education and

language education fields. Similar to the first section, important factors related to

teaching styles are also examined by relating them to the Hong Kong English

language classroom context.

The third section discusses the relationship between teaching styles and learning

  20
styles in both general education and language education, and examines the effects of

the match and/or mismatch of learning styles and teaching styles on learning

outcomes. It reviews arguments proposed by both researchers who favour the

matching of learning styles and teaching styles, and those against this approach.

This literature review reveals that there is a lack of research related to ESL/EFL

learning styles and teaching styles in English for Academic Purposes contexts at

community college level in Hong Kong, which is the main focus of this study.

2.2 Learning styles

2.2.1 Definitions

In general psychology, the term learning styles refers to learners’ preferred

general approach to learning, which includes the process of absorbing, processing,

and retaining new information. In the research area of second language acquisition,

the term language learning styles refers to language learners’ preferred general

approach of language acquisition. Many tests related to learning styles of

second/foreign language learners are taken from general psychology, for example, the

Student Learning Style Scale (Riechmann & Grasha, 1974), the Learning Style

Inventory (Kolb, 1976; 1984), the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey

(Dunn, Brown, & Bearsall, 1991), the Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman,

Raskin, & Karp, 1971). There are some that have been specifically designed for

second/foreign language research, for example, the Perceptual Learning Style

  21
Questionnaire (Reid, 1987); the Perceptual Learning Preferences Survey (Kinsella,

1993), the Style Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993), the Learning Style Questionnaire

(Willing, 1987), and the Learning Channel Preference Checklist (O’Brien, 1990).

As it is widely believed that language learning styles are significant in second

language acquisition, it has been one of the key foci in the area of second language

learning research. Learning styles are defined in different ways. Below are some

definitions of learning styles:

“The term learning style refers to the general approach preferred by the student

when learning a subject, acquiring a language, or dealing with a difficult

problem.” (Oxford, 2003, p. 273)

“Learning styles are internally based characteristics, often not perceived or

consciously used by learners, for the intake and comprehension of new

information.” (Reid, 1998, p. ix)

“Learning style is a composite of environmental and perceptual preferences,

which influence our physical and sensing needs; cognitive variables, which

determine how we approach, conceptualize, and structure our world; and social

preferences, which arise from cognitive, personality, affective factors and which

shape our behavioural tendencies in learning situations.” (Galloway & Labarca,

1990, p. 113)

  22
 “(Learning styles refer to) the characteristic cognitive, affective and

physiological behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of how

learners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment…

Learning style is a consistent way of functioning, that reflects underlying causes

of behaviour.” (Keefe, 1979, p. 5)

Based on the definitions above, it can be concluded that most educational

researchers divide learning styles into four different main aspects, namely cognitive,

affective, physiological/sensory, and behavioural (Oxford, Hollaway, &

Hortin-Murillo, 1992; Wallace & Oxford, 1992; Willing, 1988). Cognitive learning

styles refer to the preferred ways of mental functioning. Examples of cognitive

learning styles include field-independent/field-dependent learning styles,

analytic/global learning styles and reflective/impulsive learning styles. Affective

learning styles are the patterns of attitudes that influence what a learner will pay most

attention to in a learning situation (Oxford, 2003). Behavioural learning styles relate

to the tendency of seeking situations compatible with one’s own learning patterns.

The physiological/sensory learning styles, which are commonly investigated in

ESL/EFL research, involve the sensory and perceptual tendencies of a learner. A

number of educational research studies (Dunn, 1983, 1984; Garger & Guild, 1985;

Reid, 1987; Reinert, 1976) show that language learners have mainly one of six basic

perceptual learning styles, namely visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group and

  23
individual learning styles.

Similar to the definitions of learning styles, different researchers have different

opinions towards the nature of styles. Keefe (1982) states that learning styles are

relatively stable when learners interact with the learning environment. Ehrman and

Oxford (1990) consider that learning styles are internally based characteristics which

are retained despite the teaching methods and classroom atmospheres. Learning styles

are also used unconsciously by learners for absorbing and understanding new

information (Reid, 1998). However, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) add that new styles

may be acquired with time and the old styles can be adapted when learners start to

become aware of them. Sternberg (1994, p. 174) points out that learning styles “are

not permanently determined at birth”. Learning styles can change in different

situations and stages of life, and environmental reinforcement can result in the

shaping of learning styles. For example, rewarding learners who use certain styles can

lead to their preferences for those styles. In addition, designing learning tasks which

are more optimally performed with certain styles can also cause learners to prefer

certain styles. He also adds that one’s value system is related to the development of

learning styles through socialization. Kinsella and Sherak (1998) explain that learning

styles are not fixed and not fully innate. They found that learning styles can be

reinforced by classroom roles and values and that learners tend to prefer the ways that

they are most often exposed to, especially when they experience academic success.

That means learning styles reflect habitual ways of acquiring knowledge.

Some researchers suggest that learning styles are biologically determined and are

  24
outcomes of “genetic makeup”. For example, Dunn (1999) argues that learning styles

are “biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics” (p. 3). She

(1990) finds that three-fifths of learning styles are biologically imposed in her

research. For example, learners’ preference for bright or dim light is considered as

biologically imposed in their studies. However, Dunn (1990) also indicates that other

factors, such as sociological and environmental factors, are related to the development

of learning styles.

Although different researchers have different ideas about the nature of learning

styles, they share similar views about the development of learning styles. That is that

learning styles are static for a short period of time, but can be altered in the long term

when learners interact with the external factors such as social and educational

environments. This study, therefore, will further investigate how different factors

might influence students’ learning styles.

The terms learning style and cognitive style are sometimes used interchangeably

in research studies. Ellis (2008) comments that it is necessary to differentiate the

terms learning style and cognitive style in order to avoid confusion. Allport (1937)

describes cognitive styles as an individual’s habitual way of mental processing, which

includes problem solving, thinking, perceiving and remembering, whereas learning

style is concerned with the application of cognitive style in learning (Riding &

Cheema, 1991). Riding and Cheema (1991) add that cognitive style can be described

in terms of bipolar dimensions (e.g., wholist-analytic, impulsive-reflective,

concrete-abstract), while learning style can include a number of components which

  25
are not mutually exclusive (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile learning styles). Cognitive

style can also be regarded as an important component of learning style. Dȍrnyei (2005)

and Rayner (2000) distinguish learning style and cognitive style by the stability of

processing information in different situations. They define cognitive style as the

stable way of processing information, which relates to other affective, physiological,

and behavioural factors. On the other hand, other theorists consider that learning

styles can change with experience or situation, and can also be potentially trainable

(Cassidy, 2004; Holec, 1987; Little & Singleton, 1990).

Another term which is also often associated with the term learning styles is

learning strategies. Learning strategies refer to the methods learners employ when

dealing with different learning tasks, such as negotiation of meaning, practice, and

review. In the context of second/foreign language learning, it can be defined as the

strategies for learning or using the second/foreign language to tackle a language task.

Scarcella and Oxford (1992, p. 63) describe second language learning strategies as

“specific actions, behaviours, steps, techniques – such as seeking out conversation

partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a different language task – used

by students to enhance their own learning”. Examples of second language learning

strategies include guessing the meaning of a word by analysing the context, asking

questions, and planning for a task. Second language learning styles and learning

strategies are sometimes associated as some second language research finds that

learning strategies and learning styles are related. Cohen (2003) focuses on the

relationship between learning style preferences of second language learners and

  26
language learning strategies. He points out that when a learner, whose style is visual,

auditory, group for example, deal with a task, the learner may draw on strategies

which may be consistent with his or her style preferences. He also adds that it is,

however, difficult to determine how learning style preferences may influence the use

of strategies.

Rossi-Le (1995) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between the

preferred learning styles of adult ESL learners and their strategy use. The researcher

used the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (Reid, 1987) and

Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language learning and found the correlation between

results from the two research instruments. She found that visual learners reported

themselves choosing visualization as a strategy, while tactile and kinaesthetic learners

preferred communicating with native English speakers or others. It was also found

that group learning styles preferred social and interactive strategies, such as

“requesting clarification”, and “asking for correction”. Ehrman and Oxford have also

conducted a similar study. They used the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(Oxford, 1990) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962) to find the

relationship between language learning styles and strategies. They found that

extroverts prefer using more social strategies than introverts, while thinkers prefer

metacognitive strategies more than feelers. Certainly, there are many more research

studies showing relationships between language learning styles and strategies. These

generally suggest that, if learners can use different language learning strategies

effectively, their language learning process can be facilitated and promotes more

  27
successful completion of language tasks (Chamot, 2001; Cohen 1998; Oxford, 2003;

Samida, n.d.).

The term multiple intelligences (MI) introduced by Howard Gardner (1983) is

also commonly associated with learning style theories. The MI theory is a framework

for determining one’s different intelligence factors – the ability to learn information in

particular ways. Gardner uses eight criteria to assess whether a person can be

regarded as intelligent, namely linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily

kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist intelligence. Daniel

Goleman’s (1998) theory of emotional intelligence furthers Gardner’s MI theory. The

theory suggests that intelligences include cognitive and emotional abilities. Gardner’s

interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences are equivalent to Goleman’s emotional

intelligence. He believes that emotional intelligence is even more important than

cognitive intelligence. Gardner (as cited in Strauss, 2013) later finds that many people

have confused notions of learning styles and multiple intelligences. He explains that

the term intelligence refers to a person’s ability for learning or facing a problem,

while style or learning style refers to how an individual approaches a range of

materials. Prashing (2005) also suggests that MI and learning styles are different. She

defines learning styles as the way people prefer to learn and remember new

information, while MI focuses on the ability to process information. Learning styles

can be used to explain the “input” of information intake, whereas MI can be

understood as the “output” function of learning. She further explains that

understanding combinations of preferred learning styles can help educators predict

  28
school success or failure. On the other hand, MI does not provide information about

students’ learning attitudes and their needs during the information intake process.

Students with similar intelligence factors may have greatly different learning styles. It

is therefore important to understand students’ preferred learning styles first in order to

help them develop the intelligence factors.

This current research study mainly focuses on investigating the English language

learning styles that Hong Kong community college students have, as well as possible

factors which may affect their language learning styles, instead of language learning

strategies and multiple intelligences. One of the important aims of this research study

is to provide baseline data for potential researchers to investigate how language

learning styles relate to other important factors related to second/foreign language

acquisition of Hong Kong students at community college level. After examining

community college students’ English language learning styles, further research can be

done to understand the relationship between learning styles and learning strategies,

and also other possible factors related to second/foreign language learning. In this

study, the term language learning styles refers to learners’ preferred general approach

to learning English as a second/foreign language in EAP contexts. The following

sections will further explain and define the types of language learning styles this study

explored. Due to the fact that the language learning styles chosen are based on the

learning style theoretical models and previous research done by other researchers, it

may be useful to review the previous learning style research and theoretical models

first. As discussed in the previous section, many second language acquisition research

  29
studies use tests and questionnaires from general psychology, and the term learning

style mainly comes from general psychology. General psychology research and

related theoretical research models will be explored first and second/foreign language

research studies and their theoretical research models will then be discussed.

2.2.2 Theoretical models and instruments

(i) Jung’s Theory of Psychological Type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI)

Carl Jung is one of the earliest learning style theorists. His theory of psychological

type is used for explaining individual differences and is influential in the development

of many learning styles models (Jung, 1968). He examines the idea of psychological

types as a way of learning. He states that random behaviours are results of the

differences between individuals’ preferences to use their mental capacities in their

internal and external worlds. He notes that people have different preferences towards

different mental functions. According to the theory, people differ in their preferences

towards eight different psychological types. He identifies that there are four

perceiving and judging functions (sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling) and two

attitudes (extraversion and introversion). The four functions and the two attitudes can

be combined to create eight mental Functions-in-Attitude. The eight types of mental

functions in their attitudes constitute Jung’s theory of psychological types. He finds

that the attitudes of extraversion and introversion are used in conjunction with either a

perceiving function (sensing and intuition) or judging function (thinking and feeling).

  30
Also, his theory states that people have innate pre-dispositions to prefer one of the

four functions over the others. For example, some people may prefer sensing of the

perceiving function rather than the judging function. The most preferred type of a

learner is his/her dominant mental function. He warns that people may experience

energy depletion and fatigue when the other less dominant functions have been used

for too long. It could be detrimental to learning if the environment does not allow the

individuals to use their dominant function, which he refers as “falsification of type”.

Although Jung’s theory does not refer to mental functions as learning styles, it can be

seen that he has established a solid foundation to the learning style theories. The

theory shows that learners have different preferences for the ways of learning and

may experience anxiety when they are not allowed to learn in their favourable ways.

Inspired by Jung’s theory on psychological types, Myers and Briggs introduced a

self-report inventory of psychological types called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI) in 1962. The MBTI aims at measuring learners’ preferences towards 16

personality types in a more understandable and practical manner. It has been widely

used in learning style research nowadays. The 16 personality types are based on the

eight types of mental functions proposed by Jung (The Myers & Briggs Foundation,

2015).

(ii) Curry’s Onion Model

Curry (1983, 1987) proposes a theoretical framework of learning behaviour that

uses an onion metaphor to illustrate different layers of the construct. According to the

  31
model, the outer layer “instructional preference” refers to learners’ preference of

learning environment. It is described as the most observable, lowest level of stability,

and the most easily influenced layer. Curry points out that this layer is the most

unstable in the learning style arena as it directly relates to learning environments,

learner expectations, teacher expectations and other external features. Related

research instruments measuring instructional preferences include the Learning

Preference Inventory (Rezler & Rezmovic, 1981). The second layer is “social

interaction”, which refers to learners’ preferred choice for social interaction in

learning. Research instruments measuring social interaction include Reichmann and

Grasha’s Student Learning Style Scale (1974). The scale measures learners’ preferred

type and level of interaction (independent/dependent, collaborative/competitive, and

participant/avoidant). The next layer, which is the more stable one, is “information

processing” – learners’ intellectual approach to processing information. Instruments

associated with information processing include Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory

(Kolb, 1976), the Cognitive Preference Inventory (Tamir & Cohen, 1980), and the

Inventory of Learning Processes (Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramaniah, 1977). The last

layer is “cognitive personality style”. It addresses learners’ ways of adapting and

assimilating information, and is described as a “relatively permanent personality

dimension” (Riding & Cheema, 1991, p. 195). Instruments which measure learners’

cognitive personality style include the Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, 1962), Myers

Briggs Type Indicator (Myer, 1962), and Matching Familiar Figures Test (Kagan,

1965). This research mainly investigates the instructional preference (first layer)

  32
and the social interaction (second layer) as they are the most observable and most

unstable layers of the model.

(iii) Gagne’s Conditions of Learning Theory

Gagne’s (1985) Conditions of Learning Theory focuses on intentional learning,

which is the type of learning that occurs in school or specific learning programmes.

His theory of learning is based on intellectual skills and eclectic behaviourism (Harris,

Sadowski, & Birchman, 2004). His approach considers that learning is similar to the

input-output information processing of a computer and that learning takes place

through attention, encoding and retrieval of information (Gagne, Briggs, & Wagner,

1992). He identifies five types of learning (Five Categories of Learning Outcomes):

verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes.

The theory states that both internal and external conditions are necessary for learning.

Internal conditions are previously learnt capabilities that learners have before new

learning takes place. This might include learners’ prior learning experiences and

knowledge. External conditions refer to the stimuli that exist outside the learner,

which include the learning environment, teacher, and the learning situation. Based on

the conditions of learning, Gagne designs a series of instructional events (Nine Events

of Instruction) for different learning outcomes. In order to understand how learning

takes place, it is important to understand both internal and external conditions.

Gagne’s Conditions of Learning Theory seems to be consistent with Curry’s (1983)

Onion Model. Both models emphasize that internal and external factors can influence

  33
students’ learning.

This research study aims at exploring the internal factors (e.g., students’

educational background and their language proficiency) and the external factors (e.g..

teaching styles and syllabi) so as to examine students’ learning styles. Although

Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction is criticized because the instructional events might

not be suitable for self-learning and be ineffective for adult learning (Dills &

Romiszowski, 1997), the conceptual base of Conditions of Learning Theory is useful

for understanding students’ learning in this study.

(iv) Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Learning Style Inventory

David Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory explains the interaction

between human developmental stages, learning processes, and experiences. Similar to

Curry’s Onion Model and Gagne’s Conditions of Learning Theory, it focuses on the

transaction between internal characteristics and external circumstances, and between

personal knowledge and social knowledge. Kolb (2000) considers that learning style

is not a fixed trait, but “a differential preference for learning, which changes slightly

from situation to situation. At the same time, there is some long-term stability in

learning style” (p. 8). He states that learning is a continuous process whereby

knowledge results from experiences and their transformation. In addition, learning

involves transactions between the person and the environment.

Kolb outlines a four-stage learning cycle that a learner will experience in

different degrees: experiencing (concrete experience), reflecting (reflective

  34
observation), thinking (abstract conceptualisation), and acting (active

experimentation). The four-stage learning cycle may vary according to learners’

learning styles and the learning contexts. Learners will generally show preference

towards one of the stages at the most basic level. The preferred learning stage then

determines learners’ preferred learning styles in Kolb’s learning style inventory. In

stage one – concrete experience, learners are involved in new experiences. In stage

two – reflective observation, learners observe others or develop observations based on

their experiences. In stage three – abstract conceptualization, learners create theories

based on their observations. In the last stage – active experimentation, learners start to

use the theories to solve problems or make decisions.

To assess individuals’ preferences towards the four modes of learning process,

Kolb developed the learning style inventory. Kolb and Kolb (2005) further explain

that life experiences, the demands of the environment, and hereditary make-up can

contribute to the development of learning style preferences. The four learning styles

that Kolb and Kolb define include converging, diverging, assimilating, and

accommodating. The converger is strong in abstract conceptualization and active

experimentation, and is good at practical application of ideas. The diverger is good at

concrete experimentation and reflective observation, and can generate ideas and see

things from different perspectives. The assimilator is strong at abstract

conceptualization and reflective observation, and is best at inductive reasoning and

creating theoretical models. The accommodator relies on concrete experience and

active experimentation, and can solve problems intuitively.

  35
 In the late 1970s, Peter Honey and Alan Mumford found that Kolb’s LSI had low

face validity in their research. They extended the LSI by producing a new inventory

called Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ). Honey and Mumford (1992) define

learning style as “a description of the attitudes and behaviour which determine an

individual’s preferred way of learning” (p. 1). They identify four types of learning

styles based on Kolb’s LSI: activists, reflectors, theorists, and pragmatists. They

emphasize that those styles have their own strengths and weaknesses and may be

important in one situation, but not in another. They also state that there is a range of

factors that could influence learning styles, such as learning experiences, the range of

opportunities available, the culture and climate for learning and the impact of the

teacher. They also found that learning styles are “modifiable by will” (Honey &

Mumford, 2000, p. 19).

(v) Apter’s Reversal Theory of Motivational Styles

The reversal theory proposed by Apter (2001) aims at providing explanations

about human behaviour and experience by examining the dynamic interplay between

“reversing” motivational states. Although the theory is not directly related to learning

styles, it is included in this section because the ideas of motivational styles can be

applied to understand learning styles. The theory of motivational states categorizes

individuals’ intellectual life into four areas: means-ends, rules, transaction, and

relationships. Apter identifies polarities among the four domains: seriousness and play,

conformity to rules and challenges to rules, power and love, self and others. Different

  36
from other personality models which assume that people have fixed personal

characteristics, Apter’s theory suggests that individuals can shift between styles based

on their needs, motivations, and situations. For example, individuals may become

serious when they have to attain achievement, but may have a playful attitude when

they have to search for fun. When applied to the field of learning styles, it can be seen

that individuals may modify or shift between styles when they are motivated to do so

or have to meet the demands of a particular situation (Hadfield, 2006). Coffield,

Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) suggest that reversal theory implies that

productive learning styles can be fostered by providing learners with a favourable

environment in which “important values are conveyed and reversals through boredom

and satiation are less likely to occur” (p. 42).

(vi) Reichmann and Grasha’s Style of Learning Interaction Model

Reichmann and Grasha’s model (1974) is a social interaction scale which

focuses on the social and affective dimensions of the measurement of style. They

define learning styles as the personal characteristics that can influence learners’

ability to acquire information, interact with peers and teachers, and participate in

learning activities. The personal dispositions include learners’ motives, perceptual

skills, modes of processing information, and preference for sensory stimulation,

gathering information, social relationships, and qualities of physical environment.

Those qualities can affect their preference for teaching styles, and their ability for

acquiring knowledge. Reichmann and Grasha also suggest that learning styles are

  37
unstable and can be altered according to the learning situation and experience. The

model mainly has three dimensions: avoidant-participant, competitive-collaborative

and dependent-independent. Grasha explains that avoidant learners are usually not

interested in class content and are typically uninterested in some class activities.

However, participant learners are very active in class activities and understand

teachers’ expectations well. Collaborative learners prefer sharing and working with

teachers and peers. They prefer lectures with class discussions and group work

activities. Competitive learners learn for receiving recognition for their academic

accomplishments. Dependent students prefer teachers to have an authority role in

class and tell them what to do. They also rely a lot on teachers’ instructions and

require teachers to give them clear guidelines. Independent learners like to have

independent learning and think for themselves. They prefer individual work, instead

of group learning. Similar to other learning style models, most learners fall in several

learning style categories and learning styles can be changed across different learning

situations. Grasha (1991) explains that learning styles and teaching styles are closely

related and that learning styles affect students’ satisfaction towards teaching styles

and their learning ability in class. In 1996, he proposes a new model which focuses on

the interaction between learning styles and teaching styles (Grasha, 2002). Further

information about the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles will be

discussed in the latter sections.

(vii) Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning Styles

  38
 According to Dunn and Dunn (1992, p. 4), learning styles refer to “a biological

and developmental set of personal characteristics that make identical instruction

effective for some students and ineffective for others”. The Learning Style Inventory,

a popular self-reporting questionnaire for analyzing the instructional and

environmental preferences of students, was developed by Dunn, Dunn, and Price

(1975). The learning style instrument was mainly developed for analyzing native

speakers of English’s learning styles. It includes five main aspects / characteristics

related to learning styles: (1) environmental factors (light, sound, temperature, and

design); (2) emotional factors (structure, persistence, motivation, and responsibility);

(3) sociological factors (pairs, peers, adults, self, and group); (4) physical factors

(perceptual strengths – auditory, visual, tactile, kinaesthetic, mobility, intake, and

time of day); and (5) psychological factors (global-analytic, impulsive-reflective, and

cerebral dominance). Dunn and Dunn (1992; 1993; 1999) explain that individuals

usually are affected by only between 6 to 14 of the 21 elements. The specific

preferences are then contributed to the learning style of the individual. The model

has been used to investigate the relationship between learning styles and academic

achievement, age, gender, and culture. Dunn and Dunn (1992) assume that learning

styles are largely constitutionally based and suggest teachers match their teaching

styles with their students’ learning styles in order to maximize learning outcomes.

Some research using the model shows that when students’ learning styles are

accommodated, they have higher academic achievements compared to those whose

learning styles are not accommodated. The model has been used in a variety of

  39
settings, such as primary and secondary schools, and universities in different countries.

Some researchers comment that the model can give clear direction for matching

instructional materials and styles with reference to students’ learning styles.

However, when the model has been applied in second language acquisition research,

researchers doubt the usefulness of the model in terms of predicting achievement.

For example, Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and Daley (2000) administered the questionnaire

designed by Dunn and Dunn to 100 university students studying French and Spanish

in the United States. Findings showed that higher achievers tended to prefer informal

classroom settings and not the kinaesthetic mode. The results indicated that learning

styles predict a very limited proportion of the variance in achievement scores.

(viii) Fleming’s VAK / VARK Theory

VAK is known as visual-auditory-kinaesthetic learning style model. The VAK

concept theories were first developed by psychologists such as Fernald, Keller, Orton,

Gillingham, Stillman and Montessori, beginning in the 1920's. Fleming and Mills

(1992) further developed VAK theory and proposed the VARK theory, which is one

of the commonly used learning style models to examine learners’ learning styles.

According to Fleming (2006), the model is used to evaluate the category of people’s

communication preference. In the acronym VARK, V means visual, A refers to aural,

R stands for read/write, and K means kinaesthetic. Fleming conducted a learning style

survey and reached the following conclusions:

Ÿ Learning style preferences can influence individual behaviours.

  40
Ÿ By understanding students’ learning style preferences, strategies can be

developed to enhance learning.

Ÿ Matching strategies for learning of a person with his learning style preferences

can motivate learners.

Ÿ The matching could promote a deeper approach to learning and effective

metacognition.

Ÿ Understanding learners’ learning styles is important for learning.

(ix) Willing’s two-dimensional learning style in ESL/EFL contexts

Willing (1987) identifies four major English language learning styles based on

two major dimensions. Kaminska (2014) finds that Willing’s concept of language

learning style is a reinterpretation of Kolb’s. Willing identifies four main learning

styles. Table 2.1 shows the characteristics of learning styles used by adult ESL

learners.

Table 2.1. Willing’s Learning Style Categories

General Learning Style Characteristics

Concrete learning style Prefers kinaesthetic modality, people-oriented,

imaginative, dislikes routinized learning

Analytical learning style Independent, prefers solving problems by means

of hypothetical-deductive reasoning, prefers

logical presentation

  41
Communicative learning style Highly adaptable and flexible, prefers social

learning and a communicative approach, enjoys

making decisions

Authority-oriented learning style Rely on other people and teachers’ directions,

likes a structured learning environment, dislikes

discovery learning

Kaminska (2014) compares Kolb’s learning style model and Willing’s. Kolb’s

abstract conceptualisation / concrete experience dimension can be interpreted as

Willing’s concrete and analytical. In addition, Willing interpreted Kolb’s processing

style of active experimentation and reflective observation as active (self-initiated) and

passive (under other people’s control) learning. Willing’s framework focuses on

processing, while Kolb’s model emphasizes both representation and processing.

Based on Willing’s (1988) model, concrete learners are field dependent and

passive, and they enjoy social interaction and authority. Anlytical learners are

field-independent and active learners who prefer to work individually and

independently. Communicative learners are field dependent and active, and prefer

real-life communication. Authority-oriented learners are field-independent passive

learners and prefer organization and teachers’ control.

(x) Oxford’s Learning Style Categories in ESL/EFL contexts

Oxford, Ehrman, and Lavine (1991) define language learning styles as the

  42
learning approaches students use in second/foreign language learning and divide

learning styles into four interrelated aspects: cognitive, affective, physiological, and

behavioural. They emphasize the relationship between learning styles, learning

strategies and culture. Learning styles and learning strategies are believed to be

influenced by cultural needs and values. For example, they explain that the nature of

Chinese characters enable learners develop their ability to recognize patterns and

memorize by rote, while people bought up speaking German tend to build up logical

and scientific way of thinking. At the same time different learning styles are

associated with different learning strategies. Oxford et al. (1991) comment that the

most significant learning styles for ESL/EFL learning include (1) global and analytic;

(2) field-dependent and field-independent; (3) feeling and thinking; (4) impulsive and

reflective; (5) intuitive-random and concrete sequential; (5) closure-oriented and open;

(6) extroverted and introverted; and (7) visual, auditory, and hands-on (tactile and

kinaesthetic). Oxford et al. associate each of the style dimensions with a set of

learning strategies or behaviours in the ESL/EFL setting. Table 2.2 shows details of

the learning styles that Oxford et al. identified.

Table 2.2. Oxford’s Learning Style Categories

Learning styles Definitions

Global Sensitive toward the overall picture

Analytic Sensitive to small details

Field-dependence Prefer to deal with information in a holistic way

  43
Field-independence Able to separate from a given context, without distraction

Feeling-oriented Sensitive to social and emotional factors

Thinking-focused Make decisions based on logic and analysis

Impulsivity Show quick and uncritical response to hypotheses

Reflection Prefer systematic, analytic investigation of hypotheses

Intuititve-random Prefer building a mental picture of the second language information

Prefer learning materials and activities involving different elements,

Concrete-sequential such as sound, movement and touch, that can be applied in a concrete

way

Closure-oriented Like to plan language study carefully

Open styles Prefer discovery learning and prefer to relax and enjoy

Extroverted Enjoy sharing with other people, such as group activities

Introverted Prefer working individually

Visual Prefer learning through visual means (e.g. books, handouts etc.)

Auditory Prefer listening and speaking activities

Hands-on Prefer activities which involve lots of movements and physical action

The most recent learning style research instrument developed by Oxford is the

Style Analysis Survey which has 110 statements analyzing learners’ general learning

approach by examining five main activities:

Activity 1: How learners use their physical senses to study or work (30 items)

Activity 2: How learners deal with other people (20 items)

Activity 3: How learners handle possibilities (20 items)

  44
 Activity 4: How learners approach tasks (20 items)

Activity 5: How learners deal with ideas (20 items)

Respondents of the survey are required to rate items on a four-point scale. Each of the

five styles constitutes a comparative style continuum

Activity 1: Visual vs. auditory

Activity 2: Extroversion vs. introversion

Activity 3: Intuitive random vs. concrete-sequential

Activity 4: Closure-oriented vs. open

Activity 5: Global vs. analytic

Although the survey uses a comparative style continuum, Oxford (1993) notes

that helping learners understand their learning style preferences can enable them to

manipulate both ends of the style continuum in order to suit different learning tasks in

different contexts. The learning style preferences are their ‘comfort zone’ and

teachers should help learners to stretch their learning zones. She also adds that each

style preference is useful for language learning. This indicates that learning styles are

flexible and it is possible for learners to change their learning style preferences. It is

therefore important to identify students’ learning styles and investigate the flexibility

of their styles.

  45
(xi) Reid’s perceptual learning styles in ESL/EFL contexts

Reid (1987) uses the term “perceptual learning styles” to describe the “variations

among learners in using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain

experience” (p. 89). Keefe (1987) adds that perceptual learning style preferences are

under the umbrella of the cognitive learning styles as “perceptual response is both

cognitive and affective in the sense that preferred response is a biased reaction to

information. We prefer to get our information in ways that are pleasing to us” (p. 17).

The sensory channels are also known as “modality strengths”. To measure learning

styles, Reid designed the Perceptual Learning Styles Questionnaire for high

intermediate or advanced second/foreign language learners. The questionnaire

consists of 30 statements that participants have to rate on a five-point Likert scale.

Table 2.3 shows the six types of perceptual learning styles categorized by Reid.

Table 2.3. Reid’s Perceptual Learning Styles

Learning styles Definitions Examples

Visual Learns more effectively through the Reading and taking lecture notes

eyes

Auditory Learns more effectively through the Listening to lectures, reading aloud

ears

Kinaesthetic Learns more effectively though Field trips, role-playing

complete body experience

Tactile Learns more effective through Building models, touching and

  46
 “hands-on” learning working with materials

Group Learns more effectively though Group discussions, working on

working with others group projects

Individual Learns more effectively when Individual written assignments

working alone

Regarding the definitions of different modalities, there is some confusion in the

learning style literature. The terms tactile and kinaesthetic are sometimes used

interchangeably by some researchers. Tactile refers to learning with one’s hands

through handling resources, for example, writing, drawing or taking notes.

Kinaesthetic suggests learning with the total physical involvement, such as

dramatizing or interviewing. Reid explains that modality strength may occur in a

single channel, for example, auditory, or may involve two or more channels, such as

kinaesthetic, visual and tactile. She also adds that ESL students from different

educational and cultural background can differ significantly in their learning style

preferences. Other variables, such as sex, length of time spent on an

English-speaking country, and level of education may be related to various learning

styles preferences. The questionnaire Reid developed was adapted and used in the

current study. Further details of the instrument and its adaptation to this study will

be discussed in Chapter 3.

Summary

This section describes and explains different learning style models from the

  47
general context to the second/foreign language learning context. Based on the

literature reviewed above, it can be seen that there are several common characteristics

shared by most of the general and second/foreign language learning models.

• All learners may have various types of (language) learning styles which are not

mutually exclusive.

• Learning styles can be divided into different categories such as, cognitive

learning styles, sensory learning styles, and temperament (language) learning

styles.

• Learning involves both internal and external factors. Internal factors refer to

learners’ prior knowledge (e.g. language proficiency) and educational

experiences, while external factors may involve teaching styles, learning

environment and teaching syllabi. That means both internal factors and external

factors can affect (language) learning styles.

• (Language) Learning styles can be measured through different research

instruments, such as questionnaire surveys.

• (Language) Learning styles are related to students’ preference towards teaching

styles, and are therefore related to the effectiveness of acquiring knowledge in

the classroom.

• (Language) Learning styles may change with learning experience and situation.

• (Language) learning styles and teaching styles are closely related.

The above section mainly introduces the various language learning style models

and the learning style categories identified by researchers in the general psychology

  48
and the second/foreign language learning fields. The following section reviews

second/foreign language learning style research conducted in different countries in

order to relate the theoretical models and theories to the actual situation in

second/foreign language classrooms, especially in the Chinese-speaking students’

classroom.

2.2.3 Learning styles and cultures

Biggs and Moore (1993) define culture as “the sum total ways of living built by a

group of human beings which is transmitted from one generation to another” (p. 24).

Macfarlane, Macfarlane and Webber (2015) point out that the ways of understanding

the world are socially and culturally specific. Kennedy (2002) explains that culture is

not only a set of behaviour, it is also the social rules, beliefs, attitudes, and values that

govern how people act and how they define themselves. Nelson (1995) examines the

relationship between the terms “learning style” and “culture” in her book chapter.

She points out that the concepts of learning style and culture look contradictory on the

surface. Learning style is related to individual differences and the development of

learning style instruments implies the existence of individual learning style

differences, whereas the notion of culture implies what is shared by a group of

individuals and is related to similarities, but not differences. However, Nelson (1995)

argues that culture is not only shared by a group of individuals, but is also learnt by

individuals. Individuals are not born to learn visually or auditory, kinaesthetically or

analytically, they learn how to learn through the socialization processes in families

  49
and the society. Nelson (1995) quotes Singleton ’s (1991, p. 20) explanation on the

cultural theory of learning to explain the relationship between learning style and

culture,

“There are, in every society, unstated assumptions about people and how they

learn, which act as a set of self-fulfilling prophecies that invisibly guide

whatever educational processes may occur there. They act as a kind of

unintentional hidden curriculum, or what an anthropologist might call a cultural

theory of learning.”

A number of researchers (De Vita, 2001; Hofstede, 1986; Jordan, 1997; Kennedy,

2002; Littrell, 2006; Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Rossi-Le, 1995; Stebbins, 1995)

suggest that culture affects one’s development of learning styles. Research studies

also indicate that poor understanding of students’ cultural learning styles can

sometimes cause academic failure. For example, Nelson (1995) reviews two

large-scale ethnographic studies related to cultural learning styles. The first study was

conducted with Native Hawaiian children. The Hawaiian children did not perform

well in traditional public schools (which focused on individual achievements) as

teachers did not notice the socialization patterns of Hawaiian children at home. The

researcher improved the situation by reorganizing the class structure which was

similar to those children’s homes, where they were encouraged to be helped by peers

or siblings rather than adults. They were also taught through stories as those children

were accustomed to doing at home. The changes were successful in improving

children’s academic achievements. The findings may imply (1) the existence of

  50
cultural learning styles; (2) cultural learning styles are learnt in families and through

the society; and (3) when teaching styles are congruent to the learning styles, students’

learning can be enhanced.

Another example is many Maori learners, the indigenous people of New Zealand,

experienced academic challenges in mainstream educational settings which aim at

promoting success for the dominant group – the Pākehā (New Zealanders of European

descent) (Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2012). The value of

individualism promoted by the mainstream group is in conflict with the Maori values

that emphasize interdependence and wholeness (Macfarlane, 2004). Bishop and

Glynn (1999) comment that the dominant values enhance the life chances of Pākehā

children, but undermine the cultural beliefs and practices of Maori. The cultural clash

creates cultural and psychological tensions for Maori students. The educational

achievement of Maori was eventually found to be much lower than the non-Maori in

both national assessments and international comparative studies (Smith & Mutch,

2010). In order to improve the academic outcomes of Maori students, the New

Zealand Ministry of Education introduced the Maori education strategy, Ka Hikitia1 –

Managing for Success 2008-2012. The strategy aims at ensuring “Maori students are

enjoying and achieving education success as Maori” (Ministry of Education, 2009;

2013). Ka Hikitia focused on improving teaching and learning through establishing

culturally responsive contexts. There are four focus areas in the strategy: (1) ensuring

high quality early childhood education for Maori students; (2) engaging Maori young
                                                                                                               
1
Ka Hikitia means “to step up, to lift up or to lengthen one’s stride” (Ministry of Education,
2013, p. 5).

  51
students in their schooling processes by organizing professional development

programmes and fostering family-school partnerships; (3) emphasizing the

importance of Maori language education by improving the supply and quality of

teachers who can teach the Maori language, and (4) transforming the Ministry by

encouraging more professionals to focus on Maori education. The culturally

responsive strategy achieved positive improvements in academic performance of

Maori students at both primary and secondary school levels. The attendance, retention

and participation in external examinations had improved after the implementation of

Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2013; Smith & Mutch, 2010). The results imply

that culturally responsive pedagogies and educational strategies improve educational

outcomes. Also, teachers should understand the cultural values of learners and

provide a culturally inclusive classroom (Macfarlane, Glynn, Cavanagh, & Bateman,

2007).

Another study took place in Oregon with Warm Springs Indian children (Nelson,

1995). The children could not succeed in their academic studies as their socialization

patterns of their culture were different from those of their teachers and schools. They

mainly learnt through the visual channel, which involved very little verbal elements.

They also spent much time with peers, instead of adults. The cultural patterns were

not congruent with the norms of traditional school in Oregon, which valued individual

achievement and oral participation. The study again shows that insufficient

understanding of students’ culture can cause academic failure.

Reid (1987) has conducted a large-scale research study investigating the four

  52
basic perceptual learning styles preferences for group and/or individual learning of

nearly 1300 non-native speakers of English in the United States. She (1987, p. 99)

concludes that ESL students differ significantly in various ways from native speakers

of English in their perceptual learning styles. Additionally, ESL speakers from

different language (and by extension different educational and cultural) backgrounds

sometimes differ significantly from each other in their learning style preferences.

Moreover, as ESL students adapt to the English-speaking academic environment,

their learning styles may change. Hainer, Fafan, Bratt, Baker, and Arnold (1990)

confirm Reid’s research finding that ESL learning styles are “the results of a complex

interaction of age, educational experience, and cultural background” (p. 1). They

contend that having a good awareness of the need for culturally sensitive instructional

methods can help maximize L2 learning. Jordan (1997) also suggests that students

studying EAP may have difficulties in learning when instructors expect students to

learn or practise in a way which is different from their normal practice. This can occur

if teachers have different cultures from learners, or teachers have been trained to teach

EAP where the culture is different from that of the learners. He concludes that EAP

courses should include socio-cultural components.

Littrell (2006), who studied the learning styles of students from Confucian

cultures, also points out that problems arise when teachers and students are unfamiliar

with the culture of the other. She emphasizes that a thorough understanding of the

culture and value of learners is helpful for students’ learning. Nelson (1995) also

studied the effects of Confucian tradition on Japanese and Chinese learners’ second

  53
language learning styles. One example she described is the dimension of competition

versus cooperation in classroom learning. Different from the Western classroom,

Japanese and Chinese learners emphasize learning through cooperation and they try to

avoid competition, which may result in embarrassment and loss of face. She

concludes that it is important to understand the cultural variation in learning and

particularly the pedagogy of the students’ home cultures. Stebbins (1995) has a

similar view that understanding cultural influences on learning-style modalities can

help teachers to develop “culture-sensitive pedagogy” in order to facilitate learning

and mediate educational weaknesses. However, she adds that knowledge of cultural

influences on learning styles should not be used to explain the merit of one culture or

educational system over another, or to stereotype students individually or collectively.

Having good knowledge of cultural influences is a way to understand learning styles.

[Link] Hong Kong Chinese culture and learning

Hofstede and Bond (1984), and Hofstede (1980) studied cultural differences in

40 countries. They concluded that Hong Kong Chinese culture features high on

collectivism, low on uncertainty avoidance (risk-taking), and high on power/distance

ratio. Trompanaars’ (1993) study also confirms that Hong Kong Chinese culture has

a high level of collectivism, a good sense of belonging to a social group and a high

preference for working in groups to solve problems. Research by Peacock (2001) and

Chu’s (1997) found that Chinese students do not have a high preference towards

individual learning style, when compared to other learning styles. Watkins (2000)

  54
explains that Asian countries are characterised as collectivist in nature, and emphasize

group work rather than individual work. In the Hong Kong context, Winter (1996)

found that peer tutoring works well in Hong Kong schools and Hong Kong students

like collaborating outside tertiary classrooms more than do Western students (Tang,

1996; Winter, 1996). Also, Hong Kong students prefer a collaborative learning

environment which could promote deeper learning strategies (Chan & Watkins,

1994).

Regarding students’ learning culture, Murphy (1987) suggests that Hong Kong

students are reluctant to express opinions in class due to the influence of their

Confucian heritage. He found that Hong Kong students never criticized the

knowledge of teachers and that Hong Kong classrooms always display a strictness of

discipline and proper behaviour. Pierson (1996) describes Hong Kong Chinese

learners as passive, dependent learners, who

seem to want to be told what to do, show little initiative... where learning is

perceived as something static and directed by others, ... school is the setting

where students absorb the knowledge... the teacher decides what is correct and

little room is given for the students to exercise personal initiative in the context

of traditional Chinese learning culture (p. 52).

Littlewood (1999) explains that students may feel uncomfortable

emotionally or intellectually to work independently under the relational hierarchy

  55
which values teacher authority. Scollon and Scollon (1994) point out that teachers are

expected to exercise authority according to the Asian notion of authority. Balla et al.

(1991) also show that Hong Kong Chinese students have little incentive to learn

independently and Evans (1996) explains that Hong Kong schools do not actively

encourage independence, individuality and creativity, but value highly obedience and

conformity.

Pratt, Kelly, and Wong’s (1999) research, which investigates the concepts of

“effective teaching” in Hong Kong, also finds that Hong Kong Chinese students treat

the text and/or the teacher as the most authoritative source of knowledge. Students are

expected to learn foundational knowledge that closely resembles the texts given by

the teacher. There is very little debate or ambiguity of the knowledge presented by

teachers. Many Hong Kong students assume that teachers have comprehensive

knowledge and they rarely challenge teachers and the texts. It was also found that

there is a clear hierarchy of authority in the relationship of teachers and students,

which is consistent with the Chinese culture. The hierarchy of role frames teachers

and students’ actions in teaching and learning in and outside classroom. Ho and

Crookall (1995) comment that Chinese culture appears to present obstacles to learning

autonomy for students in Hong Kong. Kennedy (2002) also points out that the Hong

Kong Chinese culture often stresses respect for teachers should be given by not

questioning their knowledge and wisdom. Tweed and Lehman (2002) add that

Confucius expected learners to be obedient and respect authority figures and that

learning virtue is mainly achieved by learning from the past and imitating successful

  56
role models. Tsui (1996) explains further that socio-cultural attitudes promote

conformity and cause learners to be passive in class. Students are not encouraged to

question and criticize as they are not willing to take risks which may cause them lose

face.

A number of researchers (Chan, Spratt, & Humphreys, 2002; Gieve & Clark,

2005; Ho & Crookall, 1995; Jones, 1995; Littlewood, 2003) add that many Asian

students, including Hong Kong students, have positive attitudes towards independent

learning with proper learning environment, curriculum design and classroom practices.

Gieve and Clark (2005) explain that students’ preference towards independent

learning might be attributed more to the structural elements of the educational system

than cultural factors. Jones (1995), Littlewood (1999), and Pierson (1996) also

recognise that individual differences could be found within cultural groups.

Rote-learning is also common in Hong Kong classrooms (Ballard & Clanchy,

1991; Biggs, 1996; Carson, 1992; Cross & Hitchcock, 2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2003).

Those researchers believe Chinese learners prefer rote learning by memorizing texts,

being respectful of teachers and textbooks, being quiet and asking few questions.

When learning their first language, Hong Kong students are always asked to copy out

and memorize the Chinese characters. Some comment that the Hong Kong

examination system stresses memorization and tests students’ ability to repeat

information, instead of promoting knowledge, understanding and critical thinking.

Many researchers argue that many research studies over-simplify the reality of

the learning culture in Hong Kong and that traditional views about Confucian culture

  57
may not be fully reflected in the Hong Kong context. Several researchers have found

that Hong Kong students perceive memorization as a process to deeper understanding,

instead of mechanical memorizing without meaning. Dahlin and Watkins’s (2000)

study reveals that Hong Kong Chinese students believe that repetition in

memorization helps to create a deep impression on the mind and discover new

meaning. Cortazzi also found that Hong Kong students are not passive but reflective.

Lee (1996) explains the conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. He

points out that the Confucian approach to learning also emphasizes deep thinking

processes and enquiry. Memorization is a part of the learning process that helps

learner become familiar with the text. After memorizing the text, they start to

understand, reflect and question. Marton, Dall’Alba, and Kun (1996) also argue that

memorization leads to understanding in Confucian culture. Marton et al. (1996) has a

similar finding in their study, that culturally Chinese students relate memorization

with deep processing. Likewise, Kember, and Gow (1990) examine Hong Kong

students’ approaches to study and they conclude that Hong Kong students attempt to

achieve a deep level of understanding in their study by memorising knowledge.

Tweed and Lehman (2002) found that Chinese students tend to follow a

four-stage learning process (1) memorizing, (2) understanding, (3) applying, (4)

questioning or modifying, while Jin and Cotazzi (2006) proposed another model

which also suggests that Chinese students prefer questioning and inquiring after

memorization. Jin and Cortazzi’s (2006) learning model of Chinese students suggests

that Chinese students might follow models by imitating and memorising knowledge

  58
from teachers and textbooks, in order to achieve extrinsic outcomes (i.e. passing

examinations and/or secure employment). At the same time, Chinese students’

learning also involves reflective processes: learn from authorities (i.e. teachers and

textbooks), and then think thoroughly and raise questions carefully in order to

internalise knowledge and achieve intrinsic outcomes (i.e. self-cultivation and achieve

moral principle).

Rote learning and memorization are also the key features of Maori pedagogies.

Story-telling, songs, and chants are common strategies used for both adults and

children to memorize important knowledge and cultural practices. Similar to the

Chinese culture, rote learning are not associated with surface learning, but with

complex and deep learning (Glynn, 1998; Macfarlane, 2004). The notion of rote

learning seems to have different meanings in different learning cultures.

[Link] Previous research on Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese students’ English

language learning style preferences

The earliest research related to Chinese students’ English language learning style

preferences was conducted by Reid (1987). She found that Chinese students had

multiple major learning styles due to the multiple cultures involved. The major

perceptual learning style preferences of Chinese students were visual, auditory,

kinaesthetic and tactile learning, while their minor learning style was individual

learning, and group learning was the negative learning style preference. Rossi-Le

(1995) found that Chinese learners have a strong visual orientation.

  59
 Reid (1987) explains that Chinese students appear to have multiple major

learning styles probably because some language and cultural groups may be

predisposed towards very positive responses on questionnaires. Stebbins (1995) also

points out that the Chinese culture, which emphasizes control and order, may

discourage Chinese learners to express negative opinions. Nelson (1995) explains

why Chinese learners give group work a minor or negative preference. This may be

mainly because the learning-style dimension of cooperation is a natural outcome of

the Confucian philosophical and the Chinese value system of collectivism. In Chinese

schools, students are usually tightly integrated into small groups which group

membership is constant for all the years a child attended a particular school. However,

she argues that ESL students from the cooperative Chinese culture are uncomfortable

with the ad hoc nature of small-group work in ESL classrooms, where groups

continually form and reform according to the task. They are used to groups that are

constant for a much longer period of time and also to groups that define their identity

which lasts for years. Hudson-Ross and Dong (1990) point out that cooperation

frequently occurs outside the classroom, in study groups or in other after school

groups. Su (1995) has a similar finding with Hudson-Ross and Dong that Chinese

learners seldom work in groups in class but study in groups outside the classroom.

Though the research studies identify the general language learning style

preferences of Chinese students, Kennedy (2001) argues that these studies may

obscure the differences between Hong Kong, mainland Chinese, Taiwanese and other

Chinese learners. He points out that Chinese learning styles are “far more subtle and

  60
complex than they are often made out to be” (p. 88). Liu and Littlewood (1997) also

note that the influence of Confucian culture is always overstated in learning style

research, that it is often used to explain Chinese learners’ general behavioural trait.

In other words, research which involves Chinese learners in general may not be

applicable to Hong Kong context. Kennedy (2001) suggests that the context of the

learning, and the modes of teaching and assessment have impact on Hong Kong

Chinese learners.

Although Kennedy (2001) stresses the differences in language learning styles

among Chinese learners from different geographical locations, there is very limited

recent research investigating Hong Kong Chinese learners’ language learning styles.

Feldman and Rosenthal (1991) comment that “…Hong Kong Chinese youth… placed

less value on individualism, outward success and individual competence” (as cited in

Hau & Salili, 1996, p. 127). They generally value group harmony in learning

situations over achievement, and are hesitant to stand out from the group. Lam (1997)

investigated the English language learning styles of Hong Kong university learners

studying in English for Occupational Purposes (EOP) programmes. Her research

shows that Hong Kong students do not favour learning activities that require active

participation and individual assessment. The results also revealed that students enjoy

working in groups more than working individually. Lam explains that this may relate

to the culture of the Hong Kong society which stresses collectivism. She also suggests

that students may have a perception that sharing work is easier than individual work.

She concludes by saying that individual learning may not be effective in the EOP

  61
contexts. Tang (1996) investigates collaborative learning in Hong Kong tertiary

classrooms. His findings suggest that Hong Kong tertiary students generally like

working collaboratively when preparing for assignments as they believe collaborative

learning fosters deeper thinking process and helps to generate better academic work.

However, most of the participants do not prefer to form study groups for test

preparation as they doubt their classmates’ understanding of the knowledge. The

reason for this was not suggested by Tang’s (1996) article. However, this may imply

that students have different learning style preferences in different learning contexts.

Another important research finding is many Hong Kong learners find that

role-playing is the most challenging and least relaxing task as it requires both

individual work and they have to “stand out of the class”. Peacock’s (2001) research

indicates that Hong Kong university students favour kinaesthetic and auditory

learning styles, and the least popular are individual and group learning styles.

Explanation of the language learning styles of the students is not provided in his

research. However, he suggests that the origin of student’ learning styles should be

further investigated. His research also reveals that there is a mismatch between

learning styles and teaching styles in English language university classrooms in Hong

Kong, especially between native English teachers and their students. Some

respondents comment that the mismatch makes them “frustrated or uncomfortable;

lose interest in the lesson and paid less attention… got bored and did not learn as

much” (Peacock, 2001, p. 12). However, some also report that they “just adjust their

own style” and “it doesn’t affect them because they learn things by themselves”

  62
(Peacock, 2001, p. 13). Peacock (2001) concludes that matching learning and teaching

styles promotes second language learning and can provide learners with an effective

learning environment.

2.2.4 Learning styles and educational background

Previous research (Kolb, 1981; Melton, 1990; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987;

VanderStoep, Pintrich, & Fagerlin, 1996; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999)

on language learning styles indicated that students from different disciplines had

different learning styles. Peacock (2001) found that Humanities students in Hong

Kong had a higher preference for auditory and individual learning styles than science

students. Science students had a higher preference for group learning style than

humanities students, though group style was a minor preference for science students.

Also, second-year students had a higher preference for kinaesthetic style than

first-year students. Reid (1987) found that Engineering and Computer Science

students were significantly more tactile than Humanities students. Melton (1990)

indicates that Language and Humanities students had stronger preference to

kinaesthetic learning than Science/Medicine and Business majors. Kolb (1981)

suggests that tertiary education is a major factor in shaping learners’ learning styles.

Several researchers (Kolb, 1981; Melton, 1990; Slaats, Lodewjks, & van der Sanden,

2012; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999) add that the socialization in the

course of learning and/or the process of selection into the discipline might be related

to the development of learning styles.

  63
 Additionally, there is very limited research that has been conducted to

investigate the type of schooling students have attended (e.g. study locally versus

study abroad) before their entry to tertiary study. However, there is some research

related to the length of time students have learnt English and length of time attending

classes taught by native English teachers. A number of researchers (Melton, 1990;

Reid, 1987; Reid, Vicioso, Gedeon, Takacs, & Korotkikg, 1998) found that the longer

students had studied English, the higher preference towards auditory learning. Reid et

al. (1998) suggest that this could be because learners found that auditory learning is

essential for language learning. Moreover, Melton (1990) found that students had

higher preference towards kinaesthetic and group learning when they studied English

for longer. She points out that kinaesthetic learners are more likely to take risks and

this is an important quality for success in language learning. Her findings also show

that the longer students had attended classes taught by a native English teacher, the

higher the preferences towards kinaesthetic learning. However, the reason for this was

not identified in her research.

2.2.5 Learning styles and gender

Gender is a variable that was extensively studied in previous literature on

learning styles. It is believed that males and females have different learning styles due

to gender characteristics, though some researchers maintain that research context can

also lead to the differences in learning styles.

Several learning style studies (Amir & Jelas, 2010; Baneshi et al., 2014; O’

  64
Faithaigh, 2000) have shown that males had higher preference towards independent

learning than females. In spite of the fact that those studies have similar findings on

gender differences in learning styles, very limited literature explains the differences in

detail. Some researchers (Ashmore, 1990; Melton, 1990; Oxford, 1995; Severiens &

ten Dam, 1997) suggest that the socialization process may attribute to the gender

differences. Oxford (1995) defines the term “socialisation” as the process of

educating the young and integrating them into society through different social roles.

She gives some examples of socialization at work for boy and girls in the US. For

example, parents respond differently to boy babies and girl babies; and teachers pay

more attention to aggressive and disruptive boys than to girls with the same

behaviours. Severines and ten Dam (1997) add that the process of searching for

gender identity in school and outside school might determine how females and males

behave in educational settings. Females tend to use the feminine attributes – tender

and passive, while males tend to use the masculine attributes – assertive and bold.

Ashmore (1990) proposes a multitiplicity model of gender identity model in which

gender identity is considered to consist of several components, such as personality

attributes, interest abilities, social roles and physical appearances. However, those

researchers did not explain clearly why males and females had higher preference

towards certain learning styles than the opposite sex. For instance, there is not much

information about why males had higher preference to tactile learning than females.

Another common source of gender differences in learning styles researchers

suggested is brain hemisphericity. Leaver (1986) explains that each hemisphere deals

  65
with language differently – the left hemisphere interprets the word meanings and the

right hemisphere interprets verbal tones and patterns. Oxford (1995) concludes

several research that males usually process language information more readily

through the left hemispheric, analytic mode, but females might process language

learning data though an integration of left- and right- hemispheric modes. This might

explain why the male students in this study were more analytic than females.

However, previous research results on gender differences of learning styles are

sometimes inconsistent regarding which learning styles are preferred by males or

females. For instance, Isemonger and Sheppard (2003), and Oxford’s (1995) research

indicates that male students are more kinaesthetic than females; in contrast, Melton

(1990) found that males are more kinaesthetic than females. Hence, some researchers

(Baneshi, Tezerjani, & Mokhtarpour, 2014; Severines & ten Dam, 1997) explain that

the differences in learning styles might be due to the context of the research and that a

great variety of factors, such as educational backgrounds and culture, can influence

students’ learning style preferences. Watkins and Hattie (1981), who investigated the

interaction effect of gender and field of study, found that differences between males

and females vary across their major study fields.

2.2.6 Summary

This section reviews learning style and language learning style research

conducted in different countries, and most importantly, it reviews Chinese ESL/EFL

students’ language learning styles in different contexts. By drawing on the literature,

  66
it can be concluded that:

• Different cultural backgrounds may lead to different learning styles – it is

important to understand how different cultures affect learners’ learning styles in

order to adapt teaching styles according to learning styles for maximizing

students’ learning outcomes.

• There is considerable research related to Chinese ESL/EFL learners’ learning

styles and it is generally believed that Chinese learners’ learning styles are

affected by the Confucius culture. Chinese learners are generally stereotyped as

“passive” learners and focus much on rote learning. However, it was found that

some research studies may over-generalize the term “Chinese learners” and

neglect the cultures of Chinese learners from different places – research findings

related to Chinese ESL/EFL learners may not reflect the true picture of Hong

Kong ESL/EFL learners. There is very limited research into Hong Kong

ESL/EFL learners’ learning styles, especially in EAP context and at community

college level.

• The socialization processes in families, schools and the society may cause

cultural and gender differences in learning styles.

• Besides cultural background and gender, educational background, discipline and

year of study may be related to language learning styles. However there is a

dearth of research in that area.

This section has identified a research gap in the existing literature – English

  67
language learning styles of ESL/EFL community college students in Hong Kong, and

the related factors that may affect their learning styles, such as educational

background and year of study.

As discussed in this section, learning styles may be related to teaching styles for

enhancing learning outcomes. Before exploring the relationship between learning

styles and teaching styles, it is important to have an in-depth review of the literature

on teaching styles. The next section will mainly focus on teaching styles in language

classrooms, but teaching styles in general education will also be examined as

language teaching styles are based on general teaching styles.

2.3 Teaching styles

2.3.1 Definitions

The term teaching styles refers to the general classroom behaviour associated

with and carried out by an instructor, and is not restricted to a teaching method or a

technique. The term teaching strategies sometimes makes people confused with the

term teaching styles. Teaching strategies are the specific activities which are used to

enhance the method of instruction and facilitate the knowledge acquisition of learners.

Teaching styles may be associated with teachers’ personal teaching and learning

experience, educational background and cultural background. Jarvis (2004) and

Grasha (1996) describe teaching styles as an instructor’s implementation of

philosophy, beliefs, values, and attitudes towards the exchange of teaching and

  68
learning. Similar to Jarvis and Grasha, Heimlich and Norland (1994; 2002) define

teaching styles as teachers’ teaching behaviours and teaching beliefs. Cross (1979)

defines teaching styles as the ways teachers collect, organize, and transform

information into useful knowledge. Grasha (1996) states that teaching styles are

multidimensional and can affect teachers’ presentation of information, interaction

with students, classroom task management and supervision of coursework. Cooper

(2001) defines teaching style as the sum of instructional activities, techniques, and

approaches that a teacher prefers to use in front of a class. Conti (1998) adds that

teaching styles persist regardless of the teaching conditions. However, Cornett (1983,

p. 28) argues that, although teachers have a general overall style, it does not mean

“they cannot add to or modify that style as circumstance warrant”. She explains that

modifications of teaching style can create a more successful experience for both

learners and teachers. Heimlich and Norland (1994) define teaching styles as the

implementation of personal teaching philosophy which contains beliefs, values, and

attitudes towards the teaching-learning exchange. They suggest that teaching style is

“the product of facets” of teachers’ life. This may include teaching and learning

experience, educational background, personal likes and dislikes, and cultural

background. Teaching styles might be able to be identified by observing teachers’

teaching behaviour, such as the ways of presenting information, organizing discussion,

lesson planning, and ways of facilitating learning activities.

In terms of second language learning and language teaching styles, Cook (2008,

p. 235) defines a language teaching style as a “loosely connected set of teaching

  69
techniques believed to share the same goals of language teaching and the same views

of language teaching and the same views of language and of second language

learning.” She explains that teachers use different techniques in various ways within

a particular teaching style. For instance, in the audio-lingual style teachers use

role-play and structure-drill repetition dialogue to practise English and mainly focus

on spoken language. Peacock (2001) defines second language teaching style as the

instructor’s natural, habitual and preferred way of presenting new information and

teaching language skills in classroom.

2.3.2 Relevant research on teaching styles

Many researchers (Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Giles et al., 2006; Razak, Ahmad,

& Shad, 2007; Soliven, 2003) point out that teaching style is vital for providing

students with good learning experiences, while some (Akbari & Allvar, 2010; Black,

1993; Miglietti & Strange, 1998) link it to students’ achievement outcomes.

However, there is still a very limited amount of research which has been done to

identify teaching styles, especially in second/foreign language education.

Many research studies identify teaching styles by developing classification

systems. Similar to second/foreign language learning styles, most of the research on

second/foreign language teaching styles is based on classifications derived from the

general psychology. The following includes different categories of teaching styles

identified by educational scholars in the general psychology field:

Ÿ Proactive and Reactive (Lenz, 1982)

  70
 Ÿ Content centred versus People centred (Robinson, 1979)

Ÿ Teacher-centred versus Learner-centred (Conti, 1985; Opdenakker & Van

Damme, 2006)

Ÿ Drillmaster or recitation class, content centred, instructor centred; intellect

centred, and person centered (Axelrod, 1970)

Ÿ Didatic (teacher-controlled through lecturing), Socratic (teacher-directed

through the use of questions), and Facilitative (student-centred) (Campbell,

1996)

Ÿ Formal – Informal (Bennett, Jordan, Long, & Wafe, 1976)

Ÿ Open – Traditional (Solomon & Kendall, 1976)

Ÿ Intellectual excitement – Interpersonal rapport (Lowman, 1995)

Ÿ Expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator (Grasha,

2002; 1996)

Ÿ Associative, deliberative, expositive, individualistic, interrogative,

investigative, performative, and technological (Beck, 1998)

Ÿ Visual, aural, interactive, print, kinaesthetic, haptic, olfactory (Galbraith &

Sanders, 1987)

There is very limited second/foreign language education research into the

classification of second/foreign language teaching styles. The following shows the

categories of language teaching styles found in the second/foreign language education

field.

  71
 Ÿ Academic, audiolingual, social communicative, information communicative,

mainstream EFL, and others (Cook, 2008)

Ÿ Visual, auditory, group, kinaesthetic, individual, and tactile (Peacock, 2001;

Salem, 2001)

Although the categories identified by second/foreign language education

researchers are specifically designed for investigating second/foreign language

teaching styles, it is clear that the categories are quite similar to the classifications

identified in the general psychology field.

The two-dimensional model of Intellectual Excitement and Interpersonal

Rapport developed by Lowman (1995), which has nine combinations and represents a

style of instruction that students will learn best, has been used by ESL researchers.

However, Larson (2007) points out that the instrument is a rigorously developed

two-dimensional model for identifying the range of teaching styles of different

teachers. Intellectual Excitement focuses mainly on the content to be learnt and how

knowledge is presented. Interpersonal Rapport emphasizes learners’ and focuses more

on interpersonal relationships. Akabari and Allvar (2010) use the Intellectual

Excitement – Interpersonal Rapport model to examine the correlation between EFL

university students’ English language achievement and teaching styles. They found

that there is a positive correlation between Intellectual Excitement teaching style and

students’ language achievement. They explained that when teachers present language

knowledge clearly and show the connections between topics, students are more

confident in learning and are interested in the content. Nevertheless, their research

  72
does not show a high correlation between Interpersonal Rapport teaching style and

students’ language achievement. The research shows a discrepancy between theory

and practice that students can achieve more if teachers demonstrate high Interpersonal

Rapport as acknowledging students’ feelings and communicating with students

(Larson, 2007). Akabari and Allvar (2010) did not provide any explanation for the

discrepancy.

Grasha (1994) observes college classroom teaching and identifies the following

five teaching styles: expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and

delegator. This is presented in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4. Grasha’s Five Teaching Style Categories

Style Description

Expert Possess knowledge and expertise that students need. Concerns with

offering detailed knowledge and information so as to ensure that

students are well-prepared.

Formal authority Concerns with providing students with positive and negative

feedback, establishing learning goals, expectations and rules of

conduct for students.

Personal model Provides students with personal examples and guides students by

showing them how to do things, and encourages students to

observe and emulate the instructor’s approach.

  73
Facilitator Emphasizes teacher-student interaction. Works with students on

projects in a consultative way and provides support and

encouragement.

Delegator Concerns with developing independent learning and encourages

students to work independently on projects or as part of teams.

The teacher is available as a resource person.

Grasha’s (1994) goals for developing a conceptual model of teaching style were

to explore the stylistic qualities that college teachers possessed and to offer

suggestions for when and how to employ them. Although he identifies five different

teaching styles, he suggests that categorizing teachers’ teaching styles into “one of

five boxes” is “premature” (p. 142). Instead, he finds that it is possible that teachers

possess each of the teaching styles to varying degrees that the teaching styles could be

blended together. He therefore developed four clusters of teaching styles: Cluster 1

(expert/formal authority style – i.e. traditional teacher-centred classroom processes),

Cluster 2 (personal model/expert/formal/authority style – i.e. provides personal

modelling; guiding and coaching), Cluster 3 (facilitator/personal model/expert style –

i.e. emphasizes collaborative and student-centred learning processes), and Cluster 4

(delegator/facilitator/expert style – emphasizes independent group and individual

learning activities). Each cluster reflects some blends of styles are dominant and

others are secondary. He later developed a five-point Likert scale Teaching Style

Inventory (1996) to investigate teachers’ teaching styles. He finds that teachers who

  74
have higher academic rank tend to associate with the expert and formal authority

styles. In addition, teachers tend to use the facilitator and delegator styles when

teaching higher-level classes. His research also shows that the formal authority style

can be more commonly found in foreign language classroom, when compared with

other academic disciplines, such as mathematics and computer science. Razak et al.’s

(2007) research on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) students’ preferred teaching

styles use Grasha’s Teaching Style Inventory. Their research shows that ESP students

had a high preference for the facilitator style, while the formal authority style was the

least preferred. It also shows that the most dominant teaching style of ESP lecturers

was the Expert teaching style. The researchers explain that the traditional lecture-style

of teaching is dominant in the ESP classrooms they investigated is mainly because

many lecturers lack experience in teaching ESL, especially most of the teachers are

not degree holders of ESP teaching. Stimpson and Wong (1995) point out that some

teachers tend to use a teacher-centred approach as they may feel more comfortable

with a structured style in which they can control the teaching pace. Grasha (1993) and

Roslind (2003) also suggest that teachers’ teaching styles can be influenced by several

factors like learning goals, type of course, teachers’ educational background, level of

studies, and academic discipline.

Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2015) categorize teaching styles by developing four

“families of models”. The first teaching model is the behavioural system approach

that includes explicit instruction, mastery learning and direct instruction. The second

is the information-processing approach which includes inductive learning, concept

  75
development, intellectual development, and inquiry-based learning. The third one is

the personal family of models that emphasize student-centred learning, which include

nondirective teaching and self-concept development. The last one is the social family

which includes collaborative learning and role playing. They emphasize that teachers

should be flexible and understand learners’ needs before implementing those models.

Beck (1998) summarizes teaching strategies suggested by 25 teaching textbooks

and develops a taxonomy of teaching strategies. He categorizes teaching strategies

into eight types: associative (i.e. group learning, e.g. group discussion and cooperative

task groups), deliberative (i.e. emphasizes thoughtful exchange of ideas, e.g. debate

and conference), expositive (i.e. to offer information from an authoritative source to a

receiving source, e.g. lecture and textual readings), individualistic (i.e. tailor

instruction according to individual students’ needs, e.g. peer tutoring and mastery

learning), interrogative (i.e. focuses on asking thoughtful and high-order questions,

e.g. interviews and case study), investigative (i.e. inquiry learning, e.g.

experimentation and case study), performative (i.e. involves creative expression and a

source of entertainment, e.g. dramatic play and gaming) , and technological (i.e. using

technology, i.e. video conferencing and audiotaping). Although Beck (1998) uses the

term “taxonomy of teaching strategies”, instead of teaching styles, it has the same

meaning as “teaching style” identified by other researchers, which is a set of teaching

strategies or techniques for the goal of teaching and learning in classroom. There is no

research using the taxonomy of teaching strategies developed by Beck.

Cook (2008) divides second/foreign language teaching style into six categories:

  76
academic (i.e. focuses on grammatical explanation and translation), audiolingual (i.e.

emphasizes teaching the spoken language through dialogues and drills), social

communicative (i.e. focuses on teaching language for meaningful communication

between people), information communicative (i.e. focuses on exchange of

information), mainstream EFL (i.e. combines academic and audiolingual styles), and

others (i.e. using humanistic methods). She developed a short questionnaire for

teachers to quickly identify their language teaching styles. However, a careful

review of literature has not located an research which uses Cook’s classification.

Salem (2001) and Peacock (2001), both investigated second/foreign language

teaching styles, and categorize teaching styles according to the perceptual learning

style preferences identified by Reid (1987).

There is limited published research that has been conducted to investigate

different variables, such as language teachers’ educational and cultural background,

related to language teachers’ teaching styles, when compared with the learning style

literature. The main reason for this cannot be identified in literature; this may

possibly be because people assume that teachers should develop their teaching styles

according to the learning styles of the students, not according to their own personal

background. As explained in the section on teaching style definitions, teaching styles

contain personal beliefs, values or philosophy towards teaching-learning exchange.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that teachers’ teaching styles can be influenced by

different factors, such as teachers’ cultural and educational background, teaching

experience, and learning experiences. A number of researchers (Gregore, 1979;

  77
Kasim, 2012; Pajares, 1992; Witkin, 1973) found that the learning environment the

educator comes from may contribute to the development of teaching styles. Ryan’s

(1970) study shows that teachers who come from above average financial and

intellectual backgrounds tend to have higher levels of originality and imagination than

teachers from other backgrounds.

2.3.3 Hong Kong Chinese teaching culture

There is limited teaching style literature related to teaching ESL/EFL in Hong

Kong, though there is research related to tertiary teaching in general disciplines. The

concept of teaching style is not very common in Hong Kong classroom research.

Nevertheless, there are some studies related to teachers’ perceptions about effective

teaching, which may reflect the general teaching culture in Hong Kong.

Peacock (2001) finds that ESL/EFL instructors at Hong Kong universities

strongly favour the kinaesthetic style, group and auditory styles, and disfavour tactile

and individual styles. He also finds that there is a large difference in teaching styles

by ethnic origin. His research indicates that Chinese teachers favour auditory, while

Western teachers have negative preference towards auditory style. The reason for the

differences in teaching styles is not identified in his research. The research also shows

that most ESL/EFL teachers believe that their students expect them to play an

important role in correcting language errors, and providing students with a good

model, though less than half of the participants agree that their students expect

teachers to encourage independent learning and adopt a teacher-centred approach.

  78
 Flowerdew, Miller, and Li (2000), studied Hong Kong Chinese lecturers’

perceptions, problems and strategies in lecturing in English to Hong Kong university

students, and found that most lecturers describe their lecturing style as “chalk and

talk”. They prefer to provide material with the use of a white board and/or overhead

projector as visual aids as they believe that students expect it and they find that it is

the “best” method to teach large groups. There are a few lecturers who prefer to adopt

an interactive style of lecturing, but they believe that an interactive style can only be

used with mature students (e.g., in part-time evening courses) or with small lecture

groups. The research also shows that many lecturers prefer to relate real world

experience with the lecture content. They believe that giving plenty of examples can

best illustrate important concepts and their applications, and help the students

understand how they can apply theoretical concepts to the society at large.

Another similar study (Pratt, Kelly, & Wong, 1999), which investigates Hong

Kong university lecturers’ and students’ perceptions towards effective teaching,,

revealed that the Hong Kong Chinese faculty believe that effective teachers should be

experts and authorities in their discipline. Teachers are expected to be well-prepared

for lectures by delivering knowledge to students in the best form. They should also

always prepare a clear set of well-structured tasks, offer specific and critical feedback,

and be directed towards examination. Memorization is encouraged as a way of

leading to deep understanding of knowledge. In addition, from the respondents’ points

of view, effective teachers should have a close and protective relationship with

students, which is similar to a coach or a parent. They should care about students,

  79
guide students’ learning and personal development. Teachers’ and students’

relationships are part of a social hierarchy that the lower hierarchy should respect the

higher hierarchy.

Ng’s (2003) study examines secondary school teachers and students’ perceptions

of “a good language teacher”. The research shows that in terms of teaching practice,

many secondary school teachers believe good language teachers should always

provide suitable materials to cater for students’ needs, be well-prepared for the

lessons, provide daily examples to illustrate language concepts, design interactive

games to encourage language outputs, mark students’ assignments seriously by

pointing out the mistakes and explaining to students, and give appropriate amounts of

homework. The findings of this study are very similar to Pratt, Kelly, & Wong’s

(1999) study described above.

In summary, most research studies reviewed show that teachers in Hong Kong

expect themselves to be an expert academically. They believe teachers have important

roles of preparing well-designed teaching materials according to students’ needs,

providing students with models to illustrate how different concepts can be applied in

daily life, and giving students feedback by pointing out and explaining errors.

2.3.4 Summary

Compared with learning style research, there are very few studies related to

teaching styles, both in general education and second/foreign language education.

The language teaching style models and research instruments are mainly based on

  80
general education. This may be because the present teaching style research does not

clearly reflect the actual situation of second/foreign language teaching. Moreover,

very limited research into teaching styles of Hong Kong ESL/EFL teachers could be

located, though there is research related to the teaching culture in Hong Kong.

Furthermore, most teaching style research does not show how different factors may

contribute to the development of teaching styles.

This section further reveals a research gap in the existing literature – teaching

styles of ESL/EFL community college teachers in Hong Kong, and the related factors.

The next section relates the previous section with this section by investigating the

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in classroom teaching.

2.4 The relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in

second/foreign language education

In the field of style research, there are different views about the relationship

between learning styles and teaching styles. Some researchers suggest that learning

styles and teaching styles should be well matched in order to enhance students’

motivation of learning. This section will explain the relationship between learning

styles and teaching styles with reference to motivation theory. Some experts advocate

that research evidence for the “matching theory” is inadequate and that research

instruments are not valid and reliable. Some also argue that it is impractical due to

limited educational resources and this may also limit students’ opportunities to extend

  81
their learning styles. This section will examine researchers’ views towards the

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in second/foreign language

education.

2.4.1 Motivation theory: Matching learning styles and teaching styles

Motivation plays a vital role in ESL/EFL classroom because it can influence how

much input learners can take in, how long they maintain the language skills after their

studies, how often learners use language strategies, and how they are willing to

interact with others using the target language (Trang & Baldauf, 2007). Many

motivational theorists conclude that teacher-related factors contribute the greatest in

demotivation. There are various factors that could demotivate language learners and

hinder learners from pursuing their goals. Trang and Baldauf (2007) state that there

are two types of demotives: (i) internal attributions – i.e. students’ attitudes towards

English, their learning experiences, and their self-esteem; and (ii) external attributions

– i.e. teacher-related factors, the learning environment, and other external factors.

Jones (2006) contends that the greatest source of demotivation for students is teachers’

personality and teaching styles. Bowen and Madsen (1978) add that teaching style is a

primary determinant of student motivation. Ebata (2009) states that external

motivating factors are under teachers’ control, and therefore teachers should be aware

of their teaching styles.

Numerous research studies on learning styles (Riding & Chemma, 1991; Dunn,

1990; Gregorc, 1979; Myers & Myers, 1995), especially on second/foreign language

  82
research (Reid, 1987; Carbo & Hodges, 1988; Nelson, 1995; Kinsella, 1995; Hyland,

1993; Tudor, 1996), have shown evidence that students taught in preferred learning

styles were more motivated to learning and more able to achieve greater success than

those taught in instructional/teaching styles different from their preferred styles. It

was also found that when knowledge is further reinforced through students’ secondary

preferences, students’ learning would be further enhanced (Kroon, 1985). On the

contrary, when mismatches between teaching styles and learning styles occur,

students’ language learning may be adversely affected (Reid, 1987; Cotazzi, 1990;

Oxford, Hollaway, & Horton-Murillo, 1992; Felder, 1995; Stebbins, 1995; Jones,

1997; Ehrman, 1996; Littlewood, Liu, & Yu, 1996, Peacock, 2001; Tuan, 2011).

Oxford and Lavine (1992) add that “learners whose style preference is conspicuously

different from teacher’s may be plagued by anxiety and respond negatively the

teacher, the classroom, and the subject matter” (p. 38). In other words, having a

good awareness about the preferred learning styles of students can help teachers to

understand and cope with students’ course-related learning difficulties and ultimately

help alleviate their frustration levels (Dunn, 1990; Kinsella, 1992). Reid (1996)

asserts that matching language teaching styles and language learning styles can

achieve equal educational opportunity in language classrooms and build student

self-awareness. In addition, Peacock (2001) contends that matching students’ and

teachers’ teaching styles can motivate students to work harder in and outside

classroom.

Xiao’s (2006) research on Chinese ESL students’ learning styles and Irish

  83
English instructors’ teaching styles reveals that the mismatch between learning styles

and teaching styles affects students’ attitudes toward and interest in the instructors’

teaching in class. Some student participants of the research expressed dissatisfaction

towards the attitudes of their teachers as they found that their teachers’ classroom role

was different from the conventional functions of a teacher in their culture. They

expect their teachers to be the focus of the class and play parental roles in language

learning, but their Irish teachers usually acted as a facilitator or a coach. Xiao (2006)

observed an English class and found that the conflict led to reduction of interest in

learning and caused anxiety, which was compounded by students’ language

deficiency. The research may imply that the mismatch between teaching styles and

learning styles in second/foreign language classroom, especially with weak students

who have limited language proficiency, may affect language learning. The researcher

points out that although it may not be easy to match teaching styles and learning

styles, it is better for teachers to have basic knowledge of students’ learning styles in

order to narrow the mismatch and enhance language learning.

2.4.2 Opponents of the matching theory

On the contrary, opponents of the “matching theory” argue that the evidence

shown in empirical studies is not clearly defined and learning style instruments may

not be valid and reliable. For instance, Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone

(2004), reviewed 13 different learning style models, and pointed out that “the

evidence from the (learning style) empirical studies is equivocal at best and deeply

  84
contradictory at worst” (p. 121). Similarly, Smith, Sekar, and Townsend (2002)

reviewed 18 studies on learning styles and teaching styles and found that half of the

studies were in favour of the matching hypothesis, while another half of them showed

that teaching was more effective when mismatch occurs. Reynolds (1997) conducted

eight empirical studies, with five of them supporting of matching, the other three

against the hypothesis. Ford & Chen (2001) conducted three empirical studies on

matching and mismatching, and concluded that matching is linked with improved

achievement. He also added that the effects of matching and mismatching “may not

be simple, and may entail complex interactions with other factors such as gender, and

different forms of learning” (Ford & Chen, 2001, p. 21). Coffield et al. (2004) suggest

that subject matter is also an important factor often neglected by learning theorists on

deciding the effects of matching and mismatching. Those cited empirical studies

which were against matching theory were not conducted in second/foreign language

classrooms, and therefore may not reflect the effects of matching or mismatching of

learning styles and teaching styles in second/foreign language learning.

Oxford and Lavine (1992) comment that matching teaching styles and learning

styles may not be feasible in some programmes due to limited resources.

Furthermore, it is difficult to match the teachers’ and students’ styles in all

dimensions in reality. They warn that both parties would be deprived of the ‘hidden

benefits of “style wars”. Deliberate mismatching allows learners to develop

compensation skills for dealing with situations where style conflicts exist, such as in

the business world when dealing with different people. Asking teachers to adopt an

  85
unfamiliar style may also reduce effectiveness. Additionally, Felder (1995) proposes

that the teaching styles which learners prefer may not be the best for their learning as

this may reduce the opportunity for students to extend their learning styles, which are

necessary for their future development. Some advocates of deliberate mismatching

comment that “constructive friction” by adopting a wide variety of teaching

approaches can avoid boredom and push students to be more responsible for the

content, process and outcomes of their learning. Kolb (1984) believes that the aim of

mismatching is to allow students to experience the tension and conflict in order to

promote personal growth and creativity.

Joyce, Weil, and Calhoun (2015) and Hunt (1971) point out that if the

environment is matched to the development of learners, they may become satisfied

with that stage and that will limit their ability to integrate new information and form

new conceptual systems. Personalistic psychologist, Carl Rogers (1982) also contend

that learners may confine themselves to domains in which they feel safe. Joyce, Weil

and Calhoun (2015) add that most developmental stage theories (Erikson, 1950;

Harvey, Hunt, & Schroeder, 1961; Piaget, 1952) emphasize that accommodation is

necessary if higher levels of development have to be reached. For example, Piaget’s

(1952) cognitive child development theory states that the assimilation of new

information will force the accommodations that will lead to the successive stages of

development. However, arrestation may be possible when people move upward

through the Piagetian stages. Joyce et al. (2015) point out that having sufficient

accommodation to bring about reconfiguration to a new stage requires a “letting go of

  86
the confines of one level so that the essentials of the next level can be reached” (p.

367). That means it is essential for learners to face challenges in the developmental

process in order to develop new levels of competence. They also use Vygotsky’s

(1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD) theory to explain that the conceptual

understanding and processes should be just beyond learners’ zone of comfort, but not

too demanding that learners cannot manage. Joyce et al. (2015) suggest that teachers

should scaffold the learning process by encouragement and academic support, and

educators should develop an optimal mismatch in order to maximize learners’ levels

of capability.

Carol Dweck, an educational psychologist in the field of motivation and

personality, also share similar views with those developmental theorists (Dweck,

2000, 2007; Education World, 2004). She advocates that learners should be taught to

relish challenges and the skills to cope with setbacks in order to enhance their

self-esteem and learning motivation. If learners just stay at the level which they are

satisfied with, it is less likely that they can maximize their potential. Dweck (2007)

labelled those learners who avoid challenges and stick to what they know they can do

well as “fixed mindset”. They usually are vulnerable to failure and unable to cope

with setbacks, and thus limit their intellectual growth. On the other hand, learners

who hold “growth mindset” believe that their learning ability can be developed and

make every effort to cope with setbacks in order to reach higher levels of achievement

(“Fixed Mindset,” 2007). Dweck’s theory of mindset implies that introducing

unfamiliar teaching styles to students can increase learners’ self-esteem and

  87
motivation in the long term.

Felder (1993) warns that unintentional mismatching can cause negative impacts

to learning outcomes. This may occur when a teacher is not aware of his/her own

teaching styles and teaches only in a particular style which favours certain learners,

disadvantaging others. His empirical study on US college science education indicates

that when mismatches are extreme, learners tend to lose interest in science and switch

to other fields. Students whose learning styles do not match with the prevailing

teaching styles of science teachers tend to have lower grades compared to those who

are better matched.

A number of researchers (Kinsella, 1995; Li & Qin, 2006; Littrell, 2006; Melton,

1990; Oxford & Hollaway, 1992; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Sprenger, 2003; Tuan,

2011; Willing, 1988; Zhou, 2011) contend that adopting a multi-style approach in

classroom can accommodate different learning styles of students and help learners to

extend their learning styles. Peng (2002) suggests that “by appealing to different

learning styles, more effective learning can be achieved to facilitate attention,

motivation, memory, and comprehension” (p. 2). Claxton and Maurrell (1988) discuss

the benefits and drawbacks of matching teaching and learning styles. They suggest

that matching is appropriate for teaching poorly prepared or new college students, in

order to reduce their learning anxiety. However, mismatching allows students to learn

in new ways, but it “should be done with sensitivity and consideration for students,

because the experience of discontinuity can be very threatening” (p. 1).

  88
2.4.3 Summary

To summarize, understanding the preferred learning styles of students is

important for curriculum design, teacher training, material development and student

orientation (Chang, 2003). Teachers should be aware of their teaching styles so as to

ensure that there is no extreme mismatch between teaching styles and their students’

learning styles. Matching learning styles and teaching styles may benefit students to a

certain extent, which is according to the subject matters, level of students and other

possible factors. Deliberate mismatching may create constructive conflicts and benefit

students in terms of their personal growth, creativity, and their ways of learning.

Nevertheless, there is a lack of empirical studies regarding the effects of matching or

deliberately mismatching learning styles and teaching styles in second/foreign

language classroom.

2.5 Chapter summary

Drawing on the existing learning style and teaching style research, in particular

on second/foreign language research, this chapter establishes a clear theoretical

orientation to this research – examining EAP students’ English language learning

styles and teachers’ teaching styles in Hong Kong community colleges, investigating

the possible factors related to learning styles and teaching styles, and exploring the

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in language classroom.

The literature highlighted in this chapter suggests that there are several important

  89
issues related to learning styles and teaching styles that researchers and educators

should be aware of:

• Learners may have multiple learning styles that are not mutually exclusive.

• Both internal and external factors can influence students’ learning styles.

• Learning styles can be measured through different research instruments,

such as questionnaire surveys and interviews.

• Learners' learning styles may be flexible. They may have multi-learning

styles in order to suit different tasks.

• Teaching styles may also be flexible, so that style researchers encourage

teachers to adapt their teaching styles.

• The relationship between learning styles and teaching styles remains

controversial in style research. Matching or mismatching learning styles and

teaching styles may have different effects on students’ learning.

Some of the issues in the literature are still yet to be explored. This study will

explore how some of those issues are related to English language learning and

teaching.

Although there is a lack of research which explores community college students’

language needs, it is obvious that community college students may have similar, or

even more language difficulties that university students face. Clearly, EAP teaching is

essential for students at community college level as most of them expect to continue

their studies at university. The present study, therefore, aims at investigating students’

  90
learning styles and teaching styles in order to draw educational implications for EAP

teaching and learning.

  91
Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Overview

Chapter 1 has set out the main purpose of this study – to explore Hong Kong

community college students’ language learning styles and teachers’ language teaching

styles in EAP contexts. That is, this study attempts to investigate the English language

learning styles and teaching styles of Hong Kong community college students and

teachers, how different variables influence students’ and teachers’ English language

learning styles and teaching styles, the relationship between their learning styles and

teaching styles and its effects on EAP students’ language learning.

This chapter aims to explain the research design of this research study. It follows

the interactive model of research design proposed by Maxwell (1996; 2005), which

contains five main components: research purpose, conceptual context, research

questions, methods, and validity. It first describes the conceptual framework of this

study and reiterates the main research purpose. After that, it presents the research

questions of the study, followed by the research methods and procedures for the study.

This chapter ends with a discussion of the validity and reliability of the research

instruments.

  92
3.2 Conceptual framework

This research is based on the conceptual framework illustrated by Figure 3.1.

As explained in Chapter 2, language learning styles are the result of a complex

interaction of level of study, educational experience, and cultural background (Hainer,

1990; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Rossi-Le, 1995). Language teaching styles, which

is an under-researched area, are believed to be related to teachers’ cultural and

educational background, as well as their teaching experience. The impact of matching

or mismatching learning styles and teaching styles in classroom learning is still

unknown. A number of research studies (Hyland, 1993; Kinsella, 1995; Nelson, 1995;

Tudor, 1996) have shown that students are more motivated to learn if they are taught

in their preferred learning styles. On the contrary, some theorists suggest that a

mismatch between teaching styles and learning styles can facilitate language learning

while others (Kinsella, 1995; Li & Qin, 2006; Littrell, 2006; Peacock, 2001; Tuan,

2011; Zhou, 2011) argue that adopting a multi-style approach in classrooms can help

learners extend their learning styles.

  93
 Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework of this Study

Teaching  
Level  of   Educational   Educational  
study   experience  
background   background  
Discipline   Ethnic  
background  

Learning  style   Teaching  style  

Match?  Mismatch?   preferences  of  Hong  
preferences  of  Hong  
Kong  community   Kong  community  
college  students  in  EAP   college  teachers  in  EAP  
classroom   classroom  

Pedagogical  implications  on  EAP  

teaching  and  curriculum  design  at  
community  college  level  in  Hong  Kong  

As discussed in Chapter 2, the existing literature mainly draws on ESL/EFL

students’ English language learning styles at university level, but not community

college English language classrooms. Moreover, most studies focus on English for

general purposes. There is very limited research into the construct of ESL/EFL

teachings in EAP contexts. The relationship between learning styles and teaching

styles is also an under-researched aspect of second/foreign language learning. This

study therefore attempts to fill the gap in the area of language learning styles and

teaching styles in EAP contexts at community college level in Hong Kong.

  94
 This study first identifies the English language learning style preferences of

community college students and English language teaching style preferences of

community college teachers in EAP contexts. It then investigates how different

variables contribute to their English language learning styles and teaching styles.

After that, it examines the relationship between language learning styles and teaching

styles and their effects on English language learning so that pedagogical implications

on EAP classroom teaching and curriculum design can be drawn.

3.3 Research questions

The research questions set below served as the parameters of the research, which

establishes the data collection and analysis processes of this research.

1) What are the English language learning style preferences of Hong Kong

community college students in EAP contexts?

2) To what extent do different variables relate to Hong Kong community

students’ language learning style preference in EAP contexts?

(a) Discipline

(b) Level of study

(c) Educational background (e.g. Did the student study at local secondary

school, or abroad, such as in Mainland China or English speaking

countries? Did the student attend a Chinese-medium secondary school

  95
 or an English-medium secondary school? Did the student receive any

post-secondary education, such as the Pre-Associate Degrees or

Foundation Diplomas?)

(d) Cultural background

(e) Other possible variables

3) What are the English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community

college teachers in EAP contexts?

4) To what extent do different variables relate to Hong Kong community

teachers’ language teaching styles in EAP contexts?

(a) Cultural background

(b) Teaching experience

(c) Educational background / qualifications

(d) Other possible variables

5) What is the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong

Kong EAP classrooms at community college level?

3.4 Research methods

This research combines quantitative and qualitative research methods in order to

investigate the research questions and enhance trustworthiness through triangulation.

Madey (1978) suggests that using a mixed method design can strengthen each method

by using intrinsic qualities of each other. Creswell and Clark (2007) explain that

  96
collecting, analysing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a study

provides a more comprehensive understanding of research problems. In addition, Gay,

Mills and Airasian (2006) point out that quantitative studies help to establish what,

while qualitative studies help us understand how. Using mixed methods research

helps researchers create designs that effectively answer their research questions

(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Macfarlane, Webber, Cookson-Cox and McRac

(2014) point out that mixed method research can give the “in-depth, contextualised

and natural insights of qualitative research, coupled with the economical predictive

power of quantitative research”, This research attempts to do so by employing

quantitative methodology (conducting a questionnaire survey) in order to lay the

foundation for in-depth study, which uses qualitative methodology (carrying out

semi-structured individual interviews).

This section provides a general explanation of both quantitative and qualitative

research methodologies used in this research.

3.4.1 Quantitative research methodology

The quantitative research approach involves the collection and analysis of

numerical data in order to describe and generalise conditions, investigate relationships,

and study cause-effect phenomena. Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2006) identify five main

quantitative approaches: descriptive research, correlation research,

causal-comparative research, experimental research, and single-subject research.

Descriptive research involves collecting numerical data to answer questions about the

  97
current status of the research subjects, while correlational research involves collecting

data to investigate the relationships that exist between two or more quantifiable

variables. Causal-comparative research involves determining the reason for existing

differences between individuals, while experimental research attempts to produce

soundest evidence about cause-effect relationships. Single-subject experimental

designs are used to understand the behavioural change of an individual as a result of

treatment. One of the important features of quantitative research is it usually begins

with a specific research question or hypothesis drawn from previous literature

(McKay, 2006). Another common feature is that it involves large, random sample,

and numerical indices, such as tests, or responses to surveys are often used.

Before conducting the research, the researcher has set five research questions,

which serve as a parameter of the research. Based on the nature of the research

questions and the purposes of the research, it was decided to use the quantitative

approach in this study. Two quantitative approaches – descriptive and the one-way

ANOVA are used in this study. This research first examines what type(s) of

language learning styles EAP students have and what type(s) of teaching styles EAP

teachers use (descriptive research) by distributing self-report questionnaires. Data

collected from the questionnaires is also used to analyse the mean differences

between groups of students according to the demographic information. Post-hoc

Tukey-Kramer test is also used to compare all pairs of means of different groups of

students.

  98
3.4.2 Qualitative research methodology

Qualitative research, which is also called naturalistic inquiry, aims at gaining

insights into teaching and learning activity from the perspective of research

participants. That is, it is concerned with the quality and attributes of the phenomena

being examined, instead of measuring and counting. Different from quantitative

research, researchers usually avoid making assumptions about the study so as to

accept alternative explanations from the research participants. The data collected

usually is from a purposeful and limited number of research participants and a

grounded theory inquiry approach is used to analyze the data.

In this study, a qualitative approach is used in order to investigate EAP students’

and teachers’ language learning and teaching style preferences, the factors which may

affect their language learning styles and teaching styles, and the effects of matching

or mismatching between learning styles and teaching style. Semi-structured

interviews were conducted with 60 students and 10 teachers so as to provide an

in-depth exploration and aid triangulation, based on the research results obtained from

the questionnaire.

3.5 Research setting and participants

The proposed research took place in two community colleges in Hong Kong

which provide sub-degree programmes (Pre-associate Degree, Associate Degree and

Higher Diploma programmes) for local, mainland Chinese and international students.

  99
They were chosen as the research sites for two reasons. First, they are the largest and

most well-established community colleges in Hong Kong which admit students from

different education backgrounds. Second, the academic programmes offered by the

selected community colleges have been accredited by the government and have

undergone the universities’ internal quality assurance mechanism. The community

colleges have also each set up a committee to ensure the standards and consistency of

their programmes and teaching.

This research involved a convenience sample of community college students and

English teacher volunteers. The student research participants were Associate Degree

and Higher Diploma students who studied English for academic purposes. For

admission, they generally had passed the HKALE / HKDSE or have completed the

Pre-Associate Degree / Foundation Diploma programmes or equivalent. 637

students from different types of programmes, such as Business Administration, Arts,

Science, Social Sciences and Information Technology, were invited to participate in

the research. Ten teacher participants, who were teaching English for academic

purposes at different levels, participated in this research. Both local and native

English teachers were invited and they had different educational backgrounds and

teaching experiences. Most of them, including local teachers, were educated in

English-speaking countries and had over 10 years of experience in English language

teaching. Some of them had taught EAP in different countries, including both

English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. The cohort of teachers who

participated in this study reflects the wide international representation of tertiary

  100
teaching professional employed by faculties in Hong Kong. The participating teachers

were from Europe, North America, Australasia, Taiwan, Mainland China, as well as

local. Each of the teachers had amassed diverse experiences in a variety of forms.

3.6 Research procedures

3.6.1 Ethical considerations

The researcher was a passive observer and was not working or studying at the

community colleges chosen to minimize power issues between the researcher and the

participants. Prior to the research, ethical approval from the University of

Canterbury’s Human Ethics Committee, and informed written and verbal consent

from the student and teacher participants were obtained. The consent form clearly

stated that all research participants could choose to withdraw at any stage when they

felt uncomfortable with the research process (see Appendices A and B for the

information letters and consent forms for student and teacher participants). If they

withdrew at any stage, data collected from the participants would not be used in the

research. Anonymity of participants will be ensured in all parts of the research report.

The community colleges and classes will not be identified in the report in order to

protect the privacy of the research participants. The identity of the community

colleges, classes or potentially some participants may be known to the researcher’s

supervisors for the discussions and evaluation of the research work. Additionally,

the researcher cannot control whether a participant chooses to tell anyone else that

  101
s/he is participating in this research. Confidentiality of information gathered was

guaranteed in all research procedures. Transcription of recorded data was done by the

researcher, and was kept in secure storage. Parts of the transcription may be viewed

by the researcher’s supervisors in order to aid the analysis and discussions of the

research work. All data will be destroyed at the end of the research project and all

participants understood the purpose of the research.

3.6.2 Research design

Data collection for this study was by means of questionnaire and follow-up

interviews. Most of the data collected in this research is narrative and descriptive.

This research is mainly exploratory, the data collection procedure is descriptive and

unobtrusive, and the approach to data analysis is explanatory.

In order to investigate Hong Kong community college students’ language

learning style preferences in EAP contexts (Research question 1) and the possible

factors affecting their learning styles (Research question 2), a self-report

questionnaire was designed. To improve the reliability and validity of the

questionnaire, the researcher invited 15 student participants from different educational

and cultural backgrounds to comment on the draft questionnaire. Based on their

feedback, the researcher modified the questionnaire (see Section 3.7.1 for details of

the modifications). It was then administered to 637 students. On the basis of the

results of the questionnaire, semi-structured group interviews were designed and

conducted with 60 students so as to understand their language learning style

  102
preferences and the factors affecting their styles further, in-depth. Their beliefs about

the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles were also investigated in

the interviews (Research question 5).

At the same time, teaching styles were investigated (Research questions 3 and 4)

by distributing a self-report questionnaire to ten teachers and follow-up individual

interviews were arranged. Their views to the relationship between community college

students’ language learning style preferences and their teaching styles in EAP

classrooms were also examined (Research question 5). Finally, teaching implications

were drawn by summarizing the analyzed data on research questions 1 – 5.

The next section further explains details of the research instruments.

3.7 Research instruments

3.7.1 Data collection from student participants

(i) Questionnaire

The data collection from students started off with a survey – “English Language

Learning Style Preference Questionnaire”, which was adapted from Reid’s (1987)

perceptual learning style preferences questionnaire (see Appendix C). The

questionnaire was used to collect information for four purposes: to establish an

overview of students’ language learning style preferences in EAP contexts; to

understand the relationship between students’ language learning style preferences and

different possible variables; to select participants for the subsequent procedures; and

  103
to obtain students’ background information.

Prior to the survey, the researcher reviewed literature related to the reliability and

validity of the PLSPQ developed by Reid (e.g. DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2005;

Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Itzen, 2001; Wintergerst, DeCapua, & Verna, 2003).

Based on the findings and suggestions from the studies, the researcher further

modified the questionnaire in order to suit the research participants’ English language

level and improve the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, and most

importantly, to make the questionnaire more relevant to the present research. In

addition, 15 students from the Higher Diploma and the Associate Degree programmes

were invited to respond to the questionnaire through group interviews in order to gain

their feedback about the questionnaire. Community college instructors and the

researcher’s supervisors were invited to comment on the questionnaire so as to make

sure the questionnaire is clear, purposeful, and precise. The questionnaire was then

finalized and distributed to 637 students studying EAP at different levels.

The self-report questionnaire adapted from the Perceptual Learning Style

Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) was developed by Joy Reid in 1984. The

questionnaire was mainly developed to investigate second/foreign language learners’

perceptual learning style preferences. The PLSPQ originally used a five-point scale:

from 1 (“Strongly agree”) to 5 (“Strongly disagree”), with 5 statements on each type

of learning style. The PLSPQ was chosen to be adapted in this research is mainly

because it is the most widely used of the three common survey instruments in the

ESL/EFL field (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2005; Wintergerst el al., 2001). Another

  104
reason is PLSPQ has been normed on high intermediate or advanced ESL/EFL

students (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2005). However, some research (DeCapua &

Wintergerst, 2005; Peacock, 2001; Wintergerst et al., 2001, 2003) questions the

reliability and validity of the PLSPQ. The researcher therefore further adapted the

questionnaire by rephrasing and deleting some statements, as well as the scale of

choices, in order to improve the reliability and validity of the questionnaire and to

make it more relevant to the research questions.

First, Reid (1990) points out that she encountered difficulties in obtaining

acceptable internal consistency for the scales. To address the problems previously

encountered, the adapted questionnaire uses a six-point scale: from 1 (“Strongly

Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”). This prevents students from selecting the

middle or no committal response and encourages them to evaluate more precisely the

statements and their feelings. Some students in this study reflected that they would

have chosen the middle response for most of the answers for a five-point or

seven-point scale, as they want to finish the questionnaire quickly.

Second, the wording of some of the statements was modified by providing more

specific examples. Peacock (2001) reveals that some learners may have problems

with the wording of the statements. For example, students may not understand the

statement, “I prefer to learn by doing something in class.” The problem was also

reflected by the student participants when the researcher asked them to comment on

the first draft of the questionnaire. In this research, examples were added for some

statements in order to make them clearer for the research participants. For example,

  105
some students commented that the statement “I learn more when I make something

for a class project.” was not clear, and the researcher therefore put an example

“Collecting and summarising readings for a class project.” next to the statement so

as to avoid misunderstanding of the statements. So the new item reads, “I learn more

when I make something for a class project. (E.g. Collecting and summarising

readings for a class project.)”. Another example is the statement “When I do things

in class, I learn better.” The students found that the wording “do things” is

ambiguous, the statement was then replaced by “When I do things in class, I learn

better. (E.g. Jotting down vocabulary meanings, instead of reading handouts given by

teachers only.)”. One more example is the statement “I learn better by reading than

by listening to someone” was replaced by “I think I understand language concepts

(e.g. grammar) better with written notes than oral explanation.” as some students

found the phrase “listening to someone” confusing.

Third, although the PLSPQ was designed to investigate ESL/EFL learners’

language learning styles, some statements may not be relevant to Hong Kong students’

language learning. For example, the statement “I enjoy learning in class by doing

experiments.” may not be applicable in Hong Kong English language classroom

context. Students may be confused with the word “experiments” as they often do

experiments in Science classes, but not EAP classes. The statement was then replaced

by “I enjoy learning in class by doing practical work. (e.g. Practising how to cite an

article in class, instead of reading referencing manuals given by the teachers.)”. The

second example is the statement “I learn better by reading what the teacher writes on

  106
the chalkboard.” It was replaced by “I learn best by reading what the teacher writes

on the board and/or PowerPoint presentations.” as the use of computer technology is

common in Hong Kong tertiary classrooms. The third example is “I learn better when

I make drawings as I study.” Making drawings may not be common in EAP

classrooms and students may have difficulty relating this statement to their learning.

The researcher then added the example “concept mapping / mindmapping” which is

more relevant to the EAP contexts.

A total of 18 statements from the PLSPQ have been modified by changing the

ambiguous wording and adding concrete examples.

In addition, to make the questionnaire more relevant to this study, some of the

questions related to learners’ background information were modified. Information

about TOEFL scores was deleted while information about educational background,

level of study and discipline were added to the questionnaire.

Furthermore, some student participants commented that the statements of the

PLSPQ are too repetitive, which may cause boredom and affect their incentive to fill

out the questionnaire accurately. For example, in PLSPQ, the statements “I

understand better when I read instructions.” and “When I read instructions, I

remember them better.” are very similar. Also, the statement “I get more work done

when I work with others.” is similar to another statement “ In class, I learn best when

I work with others”. The researcher therefore deleted some repeated statements and

reduced the number of statements from five statements in PLSPQ to four statements

for each learning style category in order to make the questionnaire more concise. A

  107
total of six out of thirty statements from the PLSPQ have been deleted.

Besides investigating the perceptual language learning style preferences of

language learners, this study examines students’ preferences for independent,

dependent, analytic and teacher-modeling learning styles, which were commonly

identified in the literature on learning and teaching styles. Those questionnaire

statements are also included in the second part of the questionnaire. The following

shows the example statements of those learning styles.

1. Independent learners – this type of learner prefers learning independently and

prefers solving problems on their own first.

Example: I prefer to solve problems by myself first (instead of relying on teacher’s

explanation).

2. Dependent learners– this type of learner prefers learning in a teacher-centred

approach that teachers have an authority role on establishing learning goals and

offering knowledge.

Example: I learn better if teachers prepare lots of handouts for me.

3. Analytic learners – this type of learner prefers learning which requires high-order

thinking and cognitive skills.

Example: I prefer teachers to allow me to analyze language concepts (e.g. grammar

and vocabulary) through giving examples.

4. Teacher-modeling learners – this type of learner prefers teachers showing them

how to think or do things by direct examples and illustration

  108
Example: I learn better if someone can show me how I can apply different language

concepts in different situations.

Before distributing the questionnaire, the researcher briefly introduced the

questionnaire to the students and responded to some of the students’ queries.

Students were informed that completion of the questionnaire was voluntary and that

the data collected would be confidential. They were given approximately twenty

minutes to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaires were then collected by the

researcher. Those students who wished to participate in in-depth interviews related to

the study were asked to write contact information at the end of the questionnaire.

(ii) Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 60 student volunteers after the

questionnaire survey (see Appendix E for the prompt interview questions). There

are several reasons to conduct follow-up semi-structured interviews. Interviews can

provide a rich source of data by asking participants more in-depth questions and

allowing them to elaborate on their responses to questionnaires (DeCapua &

Wintergerst, 2005; Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Wintergerst el al., 2002). At the

same time, researchers can ask for clarification or explanation when the researcher

requires more detail. Second, this can aid triangulation and thus improve the

reliability and validity of the research (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011; Johnson &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Semi-structured interviews were used

  109
as open-ended questions allow research to focus on particular topics and provide

flexibility for two-way communication.

The main objective of the first semi-structured interviews were to explore

students’ English language learning style preferences in EAP contexts further,

in-depth, the possible factors which may contribute to their language learning style

preferences and their response to community college instructors’ teaching styles.

The questionnaire may not fully reflect students’ learning style preferences and also

cannot explain all the possible factors. Semi-structured interviews can serve those

purposes. The interviews were conducted in the language that each of the participants

felt most comfortable with so that students would not be constrained by linguistic

factors. Prior to the interviews, the researcher explained the purpose of the interview

and provided an overview of the topics. Detailed notes were taken during the

interviews and the interviews were tape-recorded, translated and transcribed in case a

review was needed. The 30-minute interview took place three weeks after the

completion of the questionnaires. The interview included topics such as their

educational and cultural background, preferred ways of English learning in EAP

contexts, how they describe their EAP teachers’ teaching styles and their beliefs about

the match between teaching styles and learning styles related to their language

learning in EAP contexts. Appendix E shows the prompts for the semi-structured

interviews.

3.7.2 Data collection from teacher participants

  110
(i) Questionnaire

Teachers’ second/foreign language teaching style preferences were examined by

using a self-reported questionnaire based on the students’ learning style questionnaire

developed by the researcher (see Appendix D). The questionnaire was administered to

10 EAP teachers from different community colleges and ethnic backgrounds. The

major aims are to explore community college teachers’ teaching styles and their

variables; and to provide data for investigating the match between learning styles and

teaching styles. The self-reported questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first

part asks teachers about their ethnic background, educational background and

teaching experience. The second part asks teachers about their teaching styles using

the same six categories (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group and individual)

and categories of teaching styles identified by the researcher (i.e independent,

dependent, teacher-modeling, analytic), as on the student questionnaire. Same as the

student questionnaire, the teacher questionnaire uses a six-point Likert scale: from 1

(“Strongly Disagree”) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”).

The researcher briefly introduced the questionnaire to the teachers and responded

to their queries. Teachers were informed that completion of the questionnaire was

voluntary and that the data collected would be confidential.

(ii) Semi-structured interviews

The objective of carrying out interviews was to gain further in-depth information

on teachers’ teaching styles and their views towards the match between teaching

  111
styles and learning styles in their language classroom (see Appendix F for the prompt

interview questions). Same as the student interviews, teacher interviews allow the

researcher to ask for clarification or explanation of their views, and improve the

reliability and validity of the research. The interviews involved 10 teachers who were

teaching EAP at different levels and from different ethnic background.

Prior to the interviews, the researcher explained the purpose of the interview and

provided an overview of the topics. Detailed notes were made during the interviews

which were tape-recorded, translated and transcribed in case a review was needed.

The interviews were conducted individually. The 30-minute interviews included

topics such as educational and cultural background, preferred ways of English

language teaching in EAP contexts, and their views towards the match between

learning styles and teaching styles.

3.8 Data analysis and presentation

The main data sources of the proposed study are from questionnaire results and

verbal protocols (teacher interviews and student interviews). Questionnaire data was

analyzed quantitatively, while interview data were analyzed qualitatively.

3.8.1 Quantitative data analysis

Questionnaire administration was done by setting up data files, including coding

the data, numbering the questionnaires, and inputting the data. The Statistical Package

  112
 for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 17.0 was used to analyze students’ responses

towards the learning style preferences questionnaire and teachers’ responses towards

the teaching style preference questionnaire. The questionnaire has ten categories, with

four questions for each category. To determine students’ major/minor learning styles

and teachers’ major/minor teaching styles, the researcher adapted Reid’s preference

classification. There are four statements for each learning category in the

questionnaire. The questions are grouped according to each learning style: visual

(questions 1, 11, 25 and 33); auditory (questions 2, 19, 26 and 34); kinaesthetic

(questions 3, 12, 20 and 27); tactile (questions 4, 13, 21 and 28); individual (questions

6, 15, 19 and 30); group (questions 5, 14, 29 and 35); independent (questions 7, 16, 31

and 37); dependent (questions 8, 17, 22 and 38); teacher-modeling (questions 10, 18,

24 and 40); and analytic (questions 9, 23,32 and 39). Each question has a numerical

value (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. The Likert Scale of the Learning Style Questionnaire and the

Teaching Style Questionnaire

strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly disagree

disagree

6 5 4 3 2 1

To identify the major, minor and negative learning/teaching style preferences,

the numerical value of each learning/teaching style is added up. The scale of the

  113
learning/teaching style preferences is presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. The Scales of Major, Minor and Negative Learning/Teaching Styles

Learning/teaching style Major Minor Negative

preferences

Score 20-24 12-19 11 or less

A profile of results was established for each participant. The frequency

distribution of questionnaire results was examined. The mean for each item was

calculated and items with higher use were identified. The standard of p <.05 was used

to determine the statistical significance of results. The effects of different variables on

the learning styles was examined by using ANOVAs. Due to the uneven sample sizes,

post hoc Tukey-Kramer tests were used to compare the all pairs of means of different

groups of students. The questionnaire survey results from teachers could not be

generated in this study. The reasons for this will be presented in the latter sections.

3.8.2 Qualitative data analysis

Grounded theory inquiry approach was one of the important analytic methods to

investigate learning styles and teaching styles in this study. This approach allows

researchers to use a practical and flexible approach to understand and interpret

complex human experiences (Charmaz, 2003; Macfarlane et al., 2014). The role of

the researchers is to develop theories inductively from the collected data, mainly

through conversations and interviews. Grounded theory starts with inductive logic

  114
that researchers first collect data, then analyse it logically and finally construct

theoretical explanations from the ground up. Strauss and Corbin (1998, p. 5) suggest

researchers being “flexible” and “open to helpful criticism” in this approach. In

addition, researchers should present the information in a logical and consistent way in

order to make it meaningful to the research stakeholders (Gage, Kirk, & Hornblow,

2009).

In this research, the qualitative data consists of students’ and teachers’ interview

transcripts. All the interviews were tape-recorded, translated into English and

transcribed. The analysis procedure includes reading/memoing, describing, and

classifying/coding as suggested by Gays, Mills, & Airasian (2006). Figure 3.2 shows

the procedures of analyzing data.

Figure 3.2: The Procedures of Analyzing Data

Interview  data  

Reading/Memoing  

Describing  

Classifying/Coding  

Conclusion  drawing  

  115
 The first step was reading and writing memos about transcripts in order to get an

overall picture of the data and identify potential themes of the data. Notes were

written next to the transcripts. The next step was to examine the data in depth, which

involved developing thorough and comprehensive descriptions of the participants and

phenomenon studied. After that, data was categorized, coded and grouped into themes

(classifying). The data was rearranged into different categories (e.g. different learning

style categories) and data coded was then organized and integrated. Finally,

conclusions were drawn with reference to the previous literature on learning styles

and teaching styles.

3.9 Validity and reliability

Validity and reliability are essential for sound research, including both

quantitative and qualitative research. There are two major types of validity: external

and internal validity.

External validity refers to the degree to which the findings can be generalized to

other setting and other populations. Although this research could not involve all

community college students and teachers in Hong Kong due to limited time and

resources, the research has included the two largest community colleges in Hong

Kong, which offer EAP courses to students. McKay (2006) suggests that to enable

readers to determine the transferability (external validity) and understand to what

extent the findings can be applicable to other contexts, researchers have to provide a

  116
complete description of the participants and context of the research (Firestone, 1993;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Shenton (2004) therefore suggests that a good research report

which can achieve external validity should clearly indicate the number of

organisations taking part in the study and where they are based, the type of people

contributing the data, the number of participants involving in the fieldwork, the data

collection methods, number and length of data collection sessions, and the time period

of data collection. In this report, the researcher has given a detailed description of

the context and participants of the research – Hong Kong community college students

and teachers’ learning styles and teaching styles in EAP contexts.

Internal validity refers to the degree to which the degree to which the data can be

accurately interpreted (Brown & Rodgers, 2009). That is, the degree to which it has

controlled for variables that may affect the outcome of the study. This research can

achieve credibility or internal validity by carefully recording, analyzing and

presenting data in a fair and unbiased way. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest several

ways to achieve credibility, which includes triangulation, discussion with peers about

the research and its design and assumptions, asking research participants to check the

researcher’s interpretation of data. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative

research methods to explore community college students’ and teachers’ learning and

teaching styles so as to aid triangulation and collect in-depth information. At the same

time, the researcher asked for research participants’ and her research supervisors’

feedback on the research instruments, which include questionnaires and interview

prompts. Necessary changes, such as the format and question wordings, were made

  117
in order to make instruments valid for the study. Additionally, checking with

stakeholders in the research (member checks) and working with other researchers

(peer debriefing) are essential for internal validity (Mertens, 2014). To ensure the

credibility of the interview data, the researcher summarized what had been said and

asked if the notes could accurately reflect the participants’ position. Furthermore, the

research invited her supervisors and colleagues to check the interpretation of data.

This was done by sharing the drafts of the research reports and check whether the data

and interpretation could be compatible with the research purposes, questions and

processes.

Interviews were also conducted in order to check the interpretation of

questionnaire data. Shenton (2004) also proposes that the researcher should be

familiar with the culture of the organisations before collecting data. This can be done

by consulting relevant documents, reviewing literature, and have preliminary visits to

the organisations. Lincoln & Guba (1985) recommend researchers to develop

“prolonged engagement” with the participants in order to have adequate

understanding of the organisations and establish a relationship of trust with the

participants. Prior to the field work, the researcher has reviewed literature on English

language learning styles and teaching styles, as well as community college education

in Hong Kong. At the same time, the researcher had opportunities to take part in some

English language learning activities at a community college in Hong Kong for several

years. The researcher has also established good relationships with some community

college English lecturers and students. This helped to ensure that the data collected

  118
could be presented and interpreted accurately under scrutiny. In addition, Shenton

points out that all research participants should be allowed to refuse to participate in

the research to ensure that the research only includes those who are willing to

participate and offer data freely. Researchers should also establish good rapport with

the participants so that the participants can provide data honestly.

Similar to validity, there are two types of reliability – internal and external

reliability. Internal reliability refers to the degree to which the results are consistent if

another researcher analyzes the same data. To determine the internal reliability of the

questionnaire results, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was used. Cronbach’s Alpha

estimates the internal consistency reliability by checking how the items on a test relate

to other test items and the whole test.

The Cronbach's Alpha of the students’ learning style questionnaire was found to

be 0.91, which indicates a high level of internal consistency. Reliability tests were

also conducted for each learning style individually (see Appendix G).

The Cronbach’s Alpha of visual, tactile, and individual learning styles were 0.56,

0.58 and 0.52 respectively, which might be considered as low internal consistency in

social sciences research. However, Tuckman (1994) states thatα≥ 0.50 is acceptable

for such tests. Therefore, the alpha values of those learning styles are still acceptable

for internal consistency in learning style survey.

The subscale of the auditory (α= 0.63), kinaesthetic (α= 0.63), group (α=

0.75), independent (α= 0.67), dependent (α= 0.62), and teacher-modeling learning

(α= 0.68) styles appeared to have good internal consistency.

  119
 The Cronbach’s Alpha (α= 0.70) of analytic learning style also indicated good

internal consistency. The greatest increase in alpha would come from deleting

question 9, but removal of this question would increase alpha only by 0.01. The

corrected item – total correlation (r) of question 9 was 0.36, which means the item

correlated with the scale to an acceptable degree (r = 0.3). Therefore, question 9 was

still retained in this survey.

Based on the results of the Cronbach’s Alpha test, it could be seen that all

questions appeared to be worthy of retention due to their good internal consistency

and acceptable level of corrected item total correlation.

The internal reliability of teaching style questionnaire could not be examined as

the teacher participants doubted the reliability of the use of questionnaire as a research

instrument for investigating their teachings styles. The reasons for this will be

explained in the following chapters.

External reliability refers to the extent to which the results are consistent if the

study was replicated. To develop external reliability, researchers (Cohen, Manion, &

Morrison, 2000) suggest that researchers implement test/re-test method by running the

same tests or instruments twice and then check the correlation between the results of

the first and the second tests. However, in this research, research participants’ answers

towards the questionnaire statements may have changed due to some dependent

variables, such as students’ level of English and the length of studying EAP. The

changing nature of the phenomena can also be problematic in qualitative research

(Fidel, 1993; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). In order to address the issue, Shenton

  120
(2004) suggests that researchers report the processes clearly and explicitly so as to

enable future researchers to replicate the work. This can also allow readers to assess

to which extent the research processes can be followed in different contexts.

3.10 Chapter summary

This chapter has described the research framework with reference to the research

aims. Research questions have also been presented in order to clarify the research

focus. It also presents the research methods and procedures, including the explanation

of how the researcher analysed the data. In addition, this chapter has also reflected on

the validity and reliability of the research, which is essential for every research study.

The next chapter will present the quantitative data collected in this research.

  121
Chapter 4: Quantitative and Qualitative Results

4.1 Overview

This chapter presents the questionnaire results gathered in this research. In this

study, the researcher administered two questionnaires (see Appendices C and D),

which had similar questions, for both student and teacher participants respectively.

The main aim of this was to compare the learning styles of students studying English

for academic purposes (EAP) and the teaching styles of EAP teachers,

There were two main parts to the students’ questionnaire. The first part consisted

of questions related to student participants’ demographic information, i.e. gender,

year of study, programme, major field, place of origin, first and second language, type

of secondary school attended, and highest qualification held when entering the

programme. The second part investigated students’ learning style preferences towards

studying EAP. In this chapter, the results of the questionnaire survey are reported

using descriptive data whereby the results are explained and presented using numeric

descriptions and graphs. The following aspects of results are included in this chapter:

mean scores and standard deviations for each learning style, the p values (level of

significance) of mean differences between different groups of students (according to

the demographic information) from one-way ANOVAs, and post hoc Tukey-Kramer

test results which compared all pairs of means of different groups of students. This

part attempts to answer research questions 1 and 2, that are listed in Chapter 2.

However, due to the low number of teacher participants, statistical analysis of

  122
the teachers’ questionnaire survey results could not be conducted effectively. The

reasons for this are presented in this chapter as well.

This chapter also presents the qualitative findings from this research study,

beginning with exploring the factors affecting Hong Kong community college EAP

students’ English language learning styles and their perceptions about learning styles

and teaching styles. This is followed by examination of the factors influencing EAP

teachers’ English language teaching styles and their beliefs about learning styles and

teaching styles. The qualitative findings attempt to answer research questions 2, 3, 4,

and 5.

4.2 Quantitative results

4.2.1 Students’ questionnaire survey results

[Link] Demographic information on student participants

A total of 637 English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) students from

two community colleges in Hong Kong participated in the study. The student

participants were from Higher Diploma and Associate Degree programmes and were

studying different major fields. All of them took EAP classes as part of their

sub-degree programmes. Tables 4.1 – 4.4 summarize the demographic information of

the participants.

  123
 Table 4.1: Demographic Information: Gender, Place of Origin, and First and
Second Languages

Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male 309 48.5 48.5 48.5

Female 328 51.5 51.5 100.0

Place of origin

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Hong Kong 629 98.7 98.7 98.7

Mainland China 6 .9 .9 99.7

Non-English speaking country

(except Hong Kong and 2 .3 .3 100.0

China)

First language

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Chinese 636 99.8 99.8 99.8

Others 1 .2 .2 100.0

Second language

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

English 637 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 4.2: Demographic Information: Year of Study and Programme

Year of Study

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1 458 71.9 71.9 71.9

2 179 28.1 28.1 100.0

Programme

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Associate Degree 428 67.2 67.2 67.2

Higher Diploma 209 32.8 32.8 100.0

  124
 Table 4.3: Demographic Information: Major Fields

Major Fields Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Aviation 58 9.1 9.1 9.1

Business Administration 317 49.8 49.8 58.9

Dental Hygiene 21 3.3 3.3 62.2

Computing Studies 39 6.1 6.1 68.3

Life Sciences 56 8.8 8.8 77.1

Language and Humanities 87 13.7 13.7 90.7

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 3.6 3.6 94.3

Social Sciences 21 3.3 3.3 97.6

Engineering 15 2.4 2.4 100.0

Table 4.4: Demographic Information:

Type of Secondary School Attended and Qualifications on Entry

Type of Secondary School Attended Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

English-medium secondary school in Hong Kong 274 43.0 43.0 43.0

Chinese-medium secondary school in Hong Kong 347 54.5 54.5 97.5

International school in Hong Kong 4 .6 .6 98.1

International school in China 8 1.3 1.3 99.4

Local secondary school in China 2 .3 .3 99.7

Local secondary school in English-speaking countries 2 .3 .3 100.0

Qualifications on Entry Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Form 7 / Grade 13 270 42.4 42.4 42.4

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 43.0 43.0 85.4

Form 5 / Grade 11 4 .6 .6 86.0

Pre-associate degree / Foundation diploma 89 14.0 14.0 100.0

  125
[Link] Students’ learning style preferences

This section attempts to answer research question one:

What are the English language learning style preferences of Hong Kong community

college students in EAP contexts?

To examine the preferred learning style preferences of students, descriptive

means and standard deviation of the ten types of learning style preferences were

computed. The one with the highest mean value was the students’ most preferred

learning style.

The means of the learning styles preferences are given in Table 4.5. The results

shows that students preferred teacher modeling most, which had the highest mean

value of 18.46 and a standard deviation of 2.50. The least preferred learning style was

visual learning, which had the lowest mean score of 16.58 and a standard deviation of

2.47.

Table 4.5: Students’ Learning Styles Preferences

N Mean Std. Deviation

Visual 637 16.5793 2.46588

Auditory 637 17.3250 2.22823

Kinaesthetic 637 16.8995 2.50834

Tactile 637 17.3956 2.41533

Group 637 16.8430 2.79889

Individual 637 16.7473 2.35000

  126
 Independent 637 17.7159 2.51710

Dependent 637 17.2308 2.54305

Analytic 637 17.5306 2.53114

Teacher modeling 637 18.4631 2.50358

The preference mean score for each set of variables was divided into three

categories, namely, major (20 – 24), minor (12 – 19) and negative (11 or less)

learning styles. Figure 4.6 shows the major, minor, and negative learning styles of

students. A large number of students had minor learning style modes.

Figure 4.1: Students’ Learning Style Preferences: Major, Minor and Negative

600  

500  
Number  of  Students

400  

300  

200   Major  
Minor  
100  
Negative  

0  

Learning  Styles  Preferences  of  Students

  127
20 – 24 = Major Learning Style Preference
12 – 19 = Minor Learning Style Preference
11 or less = Negative Learning Style Preference

[Link] Learning style preferences and gender, year of study, programme, major

field and educational background

This section attempts to answer research question two:

To what extent do different variables relate to Hong Kong community students’

language learning style preference in EAP contexts?

One of the aims of this study was to investigate the possible factors of students’

English language learning styles. In order to determine the interaction of the

demographic factors (i.e. gender, year of study, programme, major field, educational

background and future plan) and learning styles, a one-way ANOVA was run to find

out the mean differences between groups (see Appendix H).

(a) Gender

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare male and female students’

learning style preferences. The analysis indicated that male students have significantly

greater preference for tactile, independent, and analytic learning than female students,

F (1, 635) = 7.454, p = 0.007, F (1, 635) = 10.226, p = 0.001, and F (1, 635) = 4.043,

  128
p = 0.045, respectively.

(b) Year of study

Statistical analyses show that the mean values of learning styles of Year 2

students, were generally higher than Year 1 students, except for group learning. Year

2 students preferred auditory, tactile, analytic, and teacher-modeling significantly

more than Year 1 students, F (1, 635) = 6.636, p = 0.01, F (1, 635) = 8.888, p = 0.003,

F (1, 635) = 3.823, p = 0.05 and F (1, 635) = 6.501, p = 0.011, respectively.

(c) Type of programme

In this study, both Associate Degree and Higher Diploma students were invited

to participate in the survey. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the mean

differences of Associate Degree and Higher Diploma students. The analysis revealed

that there were significant differences for kinaesthetic, independent, and

teacher-modeling learning styles, F (1, 635) = 6.595, p = 0.01, F (1, 635), p = 0.021,

and F (1, 165) = 5.012, p = 0.026, respectively. Associate Degree students indicated

that they had significantly greater preference for kinaesthetic and independent

learning, M = 17.0771, SD = 2.3848, and M = 17.8762, SD = 2.54536, respectively,

than Higher Diploma students, M = 16.5359, SD = 2.71391, and M = 17.3876, SD =

2.54536, respectively. However, Higher Diploma students preferred teacher-modeling

learning (M = 18.7799, SD = 2.25946) significantly more than Associate Degree

students (M = 18.3084, SD = 2.60305).

  129
(d) Major field

Statistical results indicated that Dental Hygiene major students had the lowest

means for all learning style preferences. The one-way ANOVA demonstrated that

there were significant differences for the visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, independent,

and analytic learning. Post hoc Tukey-Kramer tests were conducted on all possible

pairwise contrasts to find out the p value between different programmes. The

following shows the results of the tests.

Visual learning

There were significant differences in the mean values of visual learning between

the programmes as determined by one-way ANOVA [F (8, 628) = 3.143, p = 0.002].

The post hoc Tukey-Kramer test revealed that the mean value of visual learning style

of Dental Hygiene major students (M = 14.6667, SD = 1.82574) was significantly

lower than that of Aviation (M = 17.1379, SD = 2.34295), Business Administration

(M = 16.6593, SD = 2.35141), Life Sciences (M = 16.7856, SD = 2.43246), and

Language and Humanities (M = 16.5977, SD = 2.87515) majors students. In addition,

Aviation major students had a significantly greater preference for visual learning than

Social Sciences students (M = 15.1429, SD = 2.65115).

Auditory learning

The one-way ANOVA demonstrated significant difference between different

programmes, F (8, 628) = 2.517, p = 0.011. The post hoc test indicated that the mean

  130
value of auditory learning style of Dental Hygiene major (M = 16.0952, SD = 2.30010)

was significantly lower than Life Sciences (M = 17.9286, SD = 2.57157) and Media,

Cultural and Creative Studies (M = 18.1739, SD = 1.74908).

Tactile learning

Statistical analysis revealed that preferences for tactile learning differed

significantly across the programmes, F (8, 628) = 4.393, p = 0.000. Tukey-Kramer

post hoc test comparisons of the programmes indicated that Dental Hygiene major

students (M = 15.0476, SD = 1.82965) preferred tactile learning significantly less than

Aviation (M = 17.7069, SD = 2.12759), Business Administration (M = 17.2713, SD =

2.35239), Life Sciences (M = 18.1607, SD = 2.54256), Language and Humanities (M

= 17.7241, SD = 2.41935), Media, Cultural and Creative Studies (M = 18.0000, SD =

2.27636), and Social Sciences (M = 17.8571, SD = 2.24245) majors.

Kinaesthetic learning

The one-way ANOVA demonstrated that significant differences existed between

the programmes, F (8, 628) = 4.512, p = 0.000. Post hoc test indicated that Dental

Hygiene major (M = 14.6190, SD = 2.59762) preferred kinaesthetic learning

significantly less than Aviation (M = 17.0172, SD = 2.59210), Business

Administration (M = 16.9779, SD = 2.38059), Computing Studies (M = 15.8205, SD

= 2.69377), Life Sciences (M = 17.6607, SD = 2.45895), Language and Humanities

(M = 16.8279, SD = 2.35366), Media, Cultural and Creative Studies (M = 17.0435,

  131
SD = 2.65396), and Social Sciences (M = 18.0000, SD = 2.75681) majors.

Additionally, it was found that Social Sciences and Life Sciences majors preferred

kinaesthetic learning significantly more than Computing Studies major.

Independent learning

Significant differences in mean values for independent learning were found

between different programmes, F (8, 628) = 3.884, p = 0.000. Post hoc test indicated

that Dental Hygiene major (M = 16.0000, SD = 2.19089) preferred independent

learning less than Life Sciences (M = 18.5357, SD = 2.50791), Business

Administration (M = 17.7413, SD = 2.51375), Language and Humanities (M =

18.0920, SD = 2.21849), and Social Sciences (M = 18.8571, SD = 2.74382) majors.

Also, Life Sciences students preferred independent learning significantly more than

Computing Studies students (M = 16.8718, SD = 2.69678).

Analytic learning

Statistical analysis showed that significant differences were found between the

programmes, F (8, 628) = 2.915, p = 0.003. Dental Hygiene (M = 15.8571, SD =

2.68880) major preferred analytic learning less than Aviation (M = 18.1207, SD =

2.263969), Life Sciences (M = 18.0893, SD = 2.10002), and Language and

Humanities (M = 17.7586, SD = 2.39168) majors.

  132
(e) Educational background

Type of secondary school attended

In this survey, there were 16 students, out of 621 students, who had studied

secondary schools outside Hong Kong. The very unequal distribution of sample size

may cause confounding results of ANOVA. Therefore, comparisons of mean values

of students from English-medium secondary school and Chinese-medium secondary

school in Hong Kong were made only. In general, the mean values of all learning

style preferences for students from English-medium secondary schools were higher

than that from Chinese-medium secondary schools, except dependent learning. The

one-way ANOVA showed significant differences for auditory and independent

learning styles, F (1, 619) = 8.556, p = 0.004, and F (1, 619) = 4.804, p = 0.029.

Qualifications on entry

In general, students who had Form 6 qualification had the lowest mean values

for all learning style preferences, except group learning. ANOVA was then conducted

to compare the means of learning style preferences of students, significant differences

were found for auditory, tactile and group learning, F (2, 634) = 6.374, p = 0.002, F

(2, 634) = 3.994, p = 0.019, and F (2, 634) – 4.470, p = 0.012.

Auditory learning

Post hoc Tukey-Kramer test indicated that students who had Form 6 qualification

  133
(M = 16.9781, SD = 2.10169) preferred auditory learning significantly less than

students who had Form 7 qualification (M = 17.5222, SD = 2.27918) and students

who completed Pre-associate Degree or Foundation Diploma programmes (M =

17.7742, SD = 2.31314).

Tactile learning

Post hoc comparisons showed that students who completed Pre-associate Degree

or Foundation Diploma programmes (M = 17.9032, SD = 2.4635) preferred

significantly more for tactile learning than those who had Form Six qualification (M =

17.9032, SD = 2.46305).

Group learning

The post hoc test revealed that students who completed Pre-Associate Degree or

Foundation Diploma students (M = 17.6344, SD = 2.64849) had a significantly

greater preference towards group learning than those who completed Form 6 (M =

16.7518, SD = 2.81618) and Form 7 (M = 16.6630, SD = 2.79560).

Teacher-modeling learning

The statistical analysis demonstrated that students who completed Form 7 (M

=18.7148, SD = 2.51467) had significantly greater preference towards

teacher-modeling learning than those who had Form 6 qualification (M = 18.1593, SD

= 2.44467).

  134
4.2.2 Teachers’ questionnaire survey results

In this study, with the aims of investigating teachers’ teaching styles and

comparing teaching styles and learning styles, a questionnaire for teacher participants

was administered.. The researcher invited all teachers who taught EAP at the two

community colleges to participate in the questionnaire survey by Email, but the

response rate for the questionnaire survey was less than satisfactory. The small

sample size (10 teacher participants) reduces statistical power, which may cause

inaccurate and unreliable statistical results. Therefore, the results of the questionnaire

survey from teachers are not presented in this paper. Although the response rate of the

questionnaire was less than satisfactory and could not be presented statistically, the

participants who completed the questionnaire were invited to participate in the

interviews in order to investigate their teaching styles and perceptions towards

students’ learning styles in-depth.

There were two main reasons which caused the low response rate of the

questionnaire survey. First, different from many Western countries which implement

small class teaching, the class sizes of English classes in Hong Kong are relatively

large – usually around 24 – 35 students per class. Therefore, there were less than 12

teachers who taught English for academic purposes in each college, though the

number of student participants was quite large. Hence, the low response rate was

caused by the limited number of teacher participants in this survey. The second reason

was that some teachers commented that the questionnaire could not sufficiently

  135
demonstrate their teaching styles as their teaching style differed when they taught

different classes and levels. They reported that they found it difficult to choose the

correct options in the questionnaire as they pointed out that they might have different

answers for different EAP classes and levels of students. The next section will further

present and explain teachers’ teaching style preferences.

4.3 Qualitative results

4.3.1 EAP students’ English language learning styles

In this study, 60 Higher Diploma and Associate Degree students agreed to attend

a 30-minute group interview (4 or 5 students in a group) after completing the

questionnaire. The students invited were from different programmes and graduated

from different secondary schools, ranging from Band 1 English-medium secondary

schools to Band 3 Chinese-medium secondary schools 2 . They had different

educational backgrounds - some had completed the HKDSE, while others had sat for

the HKALE before they entered the College. In addition, their English language

proficiency, which was reflected in college examination scores, ranged from "A"

grade to "D" grade.

                                                                                                               
2
The secondary schools in Hong Kong are categorized into three bands according to their
academic standards. Band 1 schools have the highest academic standards and are regarded as
the prestigious schools for elite students.

  136
[Link] Factors influencing EAP students’ English language learning styles

This section attempts to answer research question two:

To what extent do different variables relate to Hong Kong community students’

language learning style preference in EAP contexts?

The study interviewees in this study identified five major factors which are

related to their learning styles. These include:

(a) English language proficiency

(b) Educational contexts and nature of learning tasks

(c) Cultural beliefs and values

(d) Educational background

(e) Teaching styles and learning styles of their former teachers

Factors related to students' English language learning styles

(a) English language proficiency

Many student interviewees believed that English language proficiency might be

related to their learning style preferences towards EAP.

Students who have higher language proficiency expressed that they preferred

learning independently and individually, instead of relying on teachers and learning

with peers. They believed that they had the ability to learn independently, and more

importantly, they strongly believed that advanced learners should learn independently

  137
and individually in order to further enhance their language proficiency. Students who

preferred learning independently and individually said,

"I think at this level (college level) we can't rely too much on teachers

because we know the basics already. I don't think learning in classroom and

listening to teachers' explanations can further enhance my language ability.

Advanced learners should be able to acquire language in daily life and

should also be able to explore the language rules through authentic English

texts by themselves."

"The best way to learn a language is to explore by ourselves. Of course, at

the early stage, we need teachers' support, for example, when learning the

basic vocabulary and language patterns. When we have attained a certain

level, we should be able to explore the language by ourselves. The process

of exploring can further strengthen our language ability."

Many high ability students had similar beliefs and some believed that they had

higher language proficiency than other classmates, so that learning with others might

not help them much. For example,

"It seems that other students can't help me much in English language learning. I

don't think writing an essay with my classmates who have lower ability than me

  138
 can help my learning. I believe I have the ability to write an essay and finish a

project... Explaining language concepts to other students may sometimes help my

learning, but I still prefer learning individually most of the time."

On the other hand, students who have lower language ability tend to have

stronger preference for group learning and dependent learning. Many of them pointed

out that learning with others can enhance their language proficiency by learning from

the strengths from others. Moreover, they felt more confident when doing a task with

others before reporting or submitting their work. For instance,

"I like working with others in class activities, such as writing an essay and

doing a presentation. I'm not good at English and I can't trust my language

ability. I believe other students can help me and at the same time, I can use

my strengths to help other students. I like this kind of learning environment.

For example, I'm good at brainstorming ideas and my classmates can

proofread my writing. I feel more comfortable to have my friends telling me

the language errors rather than teachers giving me a big cross after I've

submitted my work."

"I feel more comfortable to present or submit my work when working with others.

Other people don't know I made the mistakes because I did the work with other

classmates. It's less embarrassing."

  139
 "Everyone has both strengths and weaknesses. Maybe I'm good at organizing

ideas and my friends are good at grammar. I can help my classmates organize

ideas and at the same time, I can learn from them by asking them to help me

proofread my writing. It's also more efficient."

Additionally, lower language ability students preferred to have more teachers'

guidance as they lacked confidence in learning English and analyzing language

patterns independently.

"To be honest, I don't trust my own ability. With teachers' guidance, I can make

sure that I'm always on the right track."

"I know it's important to learn independently but I don't think I have the ability

to learn English by myself. How can I know I'm on the right track without

teachers' support? If you ask me to read the reference books by myself, I'm pretty

sure that I can't understand the concepts fully even though examples are given. I

may even fall asleep if you ask me to read the book by myself because I can't

understand the language well."

"I think if I can achieve a certain level, I can learn independently. I can just

learn English though movies and songs. At this stage, I don't think I have the

  140
 ability to do that. If you ask me to read an English academic text and learn the

academic vocabulary, I may have to spend many hours looking up in the

dictionary. You know, it's time consuming and boring. Although I've learnt how

to guess meaning through contexts, I still have difficulty guessing the meaning

because I don't understand most of the words in the texts."

Based on the interview findings, English language proficiency seems to be an

important factor contributing to students' learning style preferences of EAP. Higher

ability students have stronger preference towards independent learning and individual

learning, while weaker students seem to prefer dependent learning and group learning

due to their lower level of language proficiency.

(b) Educational contexts and nature of learning tasks

Many students commented that the educational system in Hong Kong is

exam-oriented and the fact that they had been spoon-fed caused them focus more on

grades, rather than learning outcomes. They considered that they therefore may have

different levels of learning style preferences in different learning tasks.

Nature of Assessments

Nearly all student interviewees pointed out that the exam-oriented educational

system in Hong Kong had influenced their development of learning style preferences.

They believed that teachers should be familiar with the assessment format and relying

  141
on them was the best way to achieve good academic results. They therefore

sometimes had a high preference for dependent learning, especially when they had

assessments. Take essay writing as an example, many students expected their teachers

to explain the assignment requirements clearly (such as essay types and assessment

rubrics), analyze different sample essays and highlight writing features for them. If

possible, they sometimes expected their teachers to read their outlines and drafts and

give them feedback before submission. Some said,

"At tertiary level, the lecturers are the examiners. To get a high GPA, of course I

should meet their requirements. The GPA can determine my path and future

development. If I don't rely on them and listen to their instructions, how can I get

good academic results and get into university? I think my dependent style is

actually caused by the exam-oriented and achievement-oriented education

system."

"The education system in Hong Kong emphasizes exam performance. If I can't

get good results, I can't get into university and get a good job. Started from

kindergarten, I had dictations, quizzes and tests every week. If we want to

perform well in those assessments, we've to listen to teachers and understand the

exam requirements. Teachers have an important role in my learning, especially

when preparing for public exams. It's impossible for us to discover the exam

rules and tips by ourselves. Teachers have lots of experience in this area."

  142
 Most of the students believed that understanding their teachers’ expectations and

requirements well could help them get better grades. This caused them become

dependent.

"The assessments were designed by our teachers. If we want to get a good grade,

we should of course listen to our teachers. They might give us tips for exams. To

a certain extent, I’m quite dependent."

"In the college, my lecturer is the one who marks my assignments. The only

way to get good results is to follow my lecturer's instructions and guidelines,

and understand my lecturer's requirements… sometimes I even asked my

teachers to comment on my drafts before submission. I think understanding

their expectations is very important."

Many community college students in Hong Kong put lots of effort into academic

studies as they see the assessments in college as the last chance for them to get into

university. They therefore have a high preference for dependent learning, especially

when they have to be assessed.

Group activities and assessments

Nearly all higher ability students said they preferred to do assignments

  143
individually because they could not trust other people's ability and worried that other

students input might affect their academic results. Some students even complained

that group assignments are unfair to students who have higher ability as they felt that

many lower ability students were "free-riders" and they always had to finish

assignments for them. In contrast, the lower ability students had a higher preference

for group assessments as they believed the higher ability students could help them

finish the tasks successfully and get better academic results.

"I don't like doing group projects with my classmates because I'm worried

that they may affect my academic results, especially those lazy and/or lower

ability students."

"We rarely do revision together. Many students do not want to share their notes

with others because every student in the college is their competitor. We also

never do assignments together because they worry that other students may copy

their ideas. I think it's very common in Hong Kong, not only in this college. The

competition is too fierce."

"If you ask me to write a 2000-word essay, of course I prefer to do it with other

classmates. At least, they can help me proofread my writing and share the work.

Maybe this can help improve my grades."

  144
 Interestingly, many student interviewees, including both higher ability and lower

ability students, do not have strong opposition to group learning in normal class

activities, which do not involve assessments, though some higher ability students

believed group learning in class may not always be helpful for their learning. Some

students said,

"It's okay to have group activities if I won't be assessed. I don't mind doing the

tasks with other students. Maybe I can learn something from them."

"Group activities may be useful for us to a certain extent. For example, I like the

games in class. We can't play the games individually. Individual learning may be

quite boring sometimes. But the group tasks should not be related to

assessments."

Based on the interview findings, it can be seen that students may have different

levels of preference for group learning according to the nature of learning tasks. Many

higher ability students generally have a higher preference for group learning for

learning activities which do not involve assessments. On the other hand, many of

them do not prefer to have group assessments.

Some students suggested that the tight learning schedule might also influence

their preference for group learning. Hong Kong tertiary students usually have to enrol

in 18 - 20 credit hours per semester, and most of the courses comprise both

  145
continuous assessments (e.g. essays, presentations and projects) and examination.

Some students may have part-time jobs after school. Many tertiary students may have

difficulty in time management, especially at the end of the semester when they have

to submit assignments. They therefore prefer to have individual work, rather than

group project, as they believe that they can handle their work and manage their own

time better if they can do the assignments individually.

"I don't like group projects. Everyone is busy with other assessments and

part-time jobs. We also have different learning schedule. It's difficult to find

suitable time to work and study together. If we work individually, we can do

the assignments according to our own schedule. We don't have to check

whether other students are available or not."

"It's very time consuming to work with other students. We've to spend lots of time

discussing the work and have to make sure that everyone agrees with what we

have discussed. If we are lucky enough and have responsible teammates, we can

share our work and do the work efficiently. If we have lazy teammates, we may

even have to spend much more time doing their parts. I think individual work is

less time consuming and at least, I don't have to spend time discussing my ideas

with my classmates and persuade them to use my ideas. We are too busy as our

learning schedule is too tight."

  146
 Some students said they understood the advantages of group learning, but had

difficulty to do that after class due to the limitation of time. They therefore had a

higher preference for in-class group activities than after-class group work. They said,

"It's Ok to do the group work in class, but I don't like after-class group projects

and assignments. It's very difficult to gather my teammates and work together.

We are from different programmes and have different timetables and sometimes

even have different study venues. Some students have part-time jobs and some of

them have lots of extra-curricular activities. If we have to do a group project, we

may have to discuss it through online chatroom or Facebook. We usually do

different parts of the project individually and then combine the parts together

before submitting the project. We sometimes don't even have time to read other

people's work and then submit the project. We know that this is not a good way

of learning and we understand the advantages of group learning well, but we

don't have time to work together. It's also impossible to form study groups after

class because it's quite difficult to find suitable time to study together."

In addition, many students preferred to work individually as they believed they

could ensure the best quality of work. They found difficult to work with students who

had poor learning attitudes and limited English language proficiency as they did not

want to spend extra time to help them finish their work.

  147
 "It's hard to have a good division of labour. Some students are too weak in

English and some students are very lazy. We may have to spend much time

helping those students for group work and sometimes even have to finish the

work for them. It's also difficult to contact them after class. For individual work,

at least everyone has the same workload and we don't have to help others finish

their work. It's less time consuming."

"Some students like doing their homework the day before the deadline. But I

don't like burning the midnight oil with them. It's impossible to work with them

because my schedule is fully packed already. I usually start my work at least two

weeks before the deadline… In-class group activities are Ok for me because at

least the teachers will monitor our groupmates' work and make sure that they

are on task."

Syllabi and curriculum

Nearly all students interviewed felt that the education system in Hong Kong put

too much emphasis on memorization of knowledge, instead of discovering language.

Some commented that this caused them to be less independent in learning and

hindered their analytical ability. They said they expected teachers to give them all

necessary learning materials, such as handouts and learning exercises. Some students

added that they expected their teachers prepare model answers for each question and

  148
analyze the questions so as to help them memorize the knowledge easily.

"In public exam, most questions test students' ability of memorizing knowledge,

though English focuses more on applications and skills."

"To prepare for English exam, my former school usually requires us to memorize

the vocabulary and sentence structures. We were given a vocabulary list and lots

of handouts about sentence structures. Sometimes I don't really understand the

meaning well, but the English public exam usually requires students to use a

wide variety of vocabulary and sentence structures. To get good grades in public

exam, we've to use many difficult words and complex sentence structures."

"The education system in Hong Kong does not test students' ability on

discovering knowledge. Students only have to memorize the knowledge from

handouts prepared by teachers."

Some interviewees described the education system in Hong Kong as a spoon-fed

one, which aims at preparing them for them examinations, instead of helping them to

acquire and discover knowledge.

"I don't really know how to learn independently. I expect my teachers to give me

lots of handouts and explain each question and all difficult words for me.

  149
 Although after I get into this College, I notice that we should not rely on our

teachers too much, I still expect them to give me lots of handouts. If not, how can

we prepare for the assessments?"

"I know that we shouldn't reply too much on our teachers because the best

way of learning a language is to acquire it in daily life. But I feel better if

teachers can give me lots of handouts and exercises because I used to learn

in this way. For example, in an essay writing lesson, I expect my teacher to

analyze the different parts of a good essay for me. "

"I started to be spoon-fed since I was a primary school kid. It's quite difficult for

me to change my way of learning."

Furthermore, some students expected teachers to prepare all learning materials

for them because they said they did not have time to find extra learning materials and

discover knowledge due to the tight learning schedule and packed syllabi. Many

students also expect teachers to analyze key language points for them as they find that

they can learn more efficiently that way.

"Yes, I understand that the ideal way of learning is to learn independently and

discover knowledge by ourselves. But I find that it's quite difficult to do that. We

have to spend so much time at school and have to do so many assignments, we

  150
 don't have extra time to read extra learning materials and discover knowledge

at library. We expect our teachers to give us the 'chicken essence' handouts

which highlight the important points. The handouts should also be concise and

easy to understand because I don't want to spend so much time checking the

meaning."

Some students found that they had difficulty balancing workloads. Due to the

limited time of studies, they could only rely on their teachers’ learning materials and

did not have enough time to find other learning materials by themselves. The packed

learning schedule appeared to be an important factor affecting their learning styles.

"In secondary school, I relied much on my private tutors' handouts. The

handouts were very concise and covered the important points only. The tutors

also analyzed the language points for me. In secondary school, I studied 6

subjects and spent 18 hours per day on my studies. And now, I take 5 courses per

semester and spend 10 hours on my studies and several hours on my part-time

job. I don't think I have to find extra materials because I don't have time to read

them and don't even have time to find them."

"Time is an important factor. If I only have to focus on this subject (EAP), of

course I am willing to read more books and find more materials to enhance my

learning. But for my situation, it's hard to do so."

  151
(c) Cultural beliefs and values

Role of teachers

Some students suggested that the Chinese traditional culture may be related to

their learning style preferences. The Chinese Confucius tradition stresses teacher

authority and requires people to show their respect to their seniors. For example,

many Chinese people see teachers as the source of knowledge and never doubt the

academic ability and moral values of teachers. They reflected that their

teacher-modeling learning styles might have originated from the Chinese Confucius

culture.

"Although I was born in Hong Kong, the Chinese tradition still has influence on

my learning. In the Chinese culture, we should show our respect to our teachers.

We never doubt about our teachers' ability because we assume our teachers

know all the things. So I always expect my teachers to be my role models."

"I think that's the Chinese traditional culture - sitting quietly and listening to

teachers' instructions. We have to listen to teachers' instructions."

"At school, to be obedient is a way to show respect to teachers. We don't speak

much in lessons and our main role is to listen to our teachers."

  152
 "Starting from primary school, our teachers expect us to listen and follow their

instructions because we have to respect them.”

Ways of acquiring knowledge

Many students pointed out that the Chinese culture of learning put much

emphasis on memorizing knowledge, as Chinese people believe that the process of

memorization can deepen learners' understanding of knowledge. After acquiring basic

knowledge through memorization, learners can further develop and investigate

knowledge independently. It is therefore common to have dictations and recitations in

both primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Many student interviewees said

they started learning through memorization when they were in kindergarten. They

believed that memorizing knowledge can deepen their understanding and is also a

way of establishing a solid foundation of knowledge. Analytical learning is not much

emphasized at an early stage of learning as Chinese people generally believe that one

should be able to analyze and investigate knowledge after acquiring the basic

knowledge through memorization.

"We had dictations every week. It is a good way of learning vocabulary. In

secondary school, the assessments mainly test our ability of memorizing

knowledge. Maybe it's because we should lay a good foundation of knowledge

before we get into university. My teachers didn't teach us the way of analyzing

  153
 language. We only have to memorize the sentence structures and functions and

use them in exams. My teachers said when we get more advanced, we will be

able to further expand the knowledge and analyzing things."

"My parents always emphasize the importance of memorizing knowledge. To get

good academic results, we should have good ability of memorizing things. When

we get older, we should further expand our basic knowledge and put it into

practice. At an early stage, analytical thinking is not much emphasized. Maybe

after we get into university, analytical thinking will become more important."

“I still remember a Chinese proverb said after reading ancient work for hundred

times until we get familiar with that, we will be able to understand and reflect on

the knowledge I think that’s one of the rationales of Hong Kong or Chinese

education. After memorizing the basic knowledge, we will be able to understand

it and put it into practice. The first step is to get familiar with the texts by

memorizing them and finally we will be able to develop our own thinking.

Although students generally believed that memorization is an important step in

language learning, especially in vocabulary learning, many also pointed out that

memorization might be more useful at the early stage of learning and having good

analytical thinking skills is essential for learning academic English, which is a more

advanced level of English language learning when compared to general English. For

  154
example, many student interviewees said good analytical skills and critical thinking

skills are important in academic reading. In order to understand an academic text fully,

they have to guess the meaning of words and identify the implied meaning by

analyzing the texts. Having good basic vocabulary knowledge is essential in order to

help them use the academic reading skills effectively.

"In primary and secondary schools, we had to memorize the meaning of

vocabulary and even the grammatical usage, such as tenses, like ‘go, went,

gone’. If we don't know the basics, how can we get to another stage? For

example, in EAP lessons, we have to learn how to paraphrase and summarize a

passage. If we don't understand the words and the grammatical structures, how

can we understand the texts and rephrase the sentences? Of course, at this level,

I don't think memorization is as important as before. When we have to write an

academic essay, we have to use different sources. We have to check whether

those sources are reliable or not, and whether the sources are suitable for our

essay. To learn how to write an essay, we can't memorize the samples because

it's plagiarism."

Students found that memorizing the basic grammatical structures and vocabulary

is important at the basic level of English language learning. They considered EAP as a

more advanced stage of English language learning, which memorization might not be

an effective way of learning.

  155
 "Memorization is important in some areas, such as basic grammatical structures

and vocabulary. EAP lessons focus more on advanced language skills.

Paraphrasing, summarizing, using different citation formats, delivering

academic presentations, writing academic essays and reports, are the skills that

I acquired in EAP lessons. I don't think memorization is effective anymore. Take

learning the citation formats as an example. There are so many types of sources,

such as book chapters, journal articles, Youtube video, press release, newspaper

articles etc. Is it really important to memorize them all? We can just google the

format. Of course, we should understand the basics first in class, and then we

can just follow the websites or guidelines."

The interviews show that students' learning styles may be different when they

learn different aspects at different stages. Students believed that memorization might

be essential when they learnt general English, but when they proceeded to a more

advanced level, they might have a stronger preference for analytical learning.

Face (Mianzi) in Chinese cultural values

In the Chinese culture, face means personal esteem, prestige and reputation.

Some students said they did not want to show their weaknesses in front of class and

therefore had a stronger preference for individual learning. They were afraid that they

may lose face if they make a mistake in front of the class. A student said,

  156
 “The concept of face is the Chinese society is important. We always try to avoid

making mistakes by being quiet in class. I think that’s the main reason why we

never form study groups. I know that forming study groups is very common in

Western countries, but I don’t think it works in Hong Kong. Many students don’t

want to reveal their weaknesses.”

“Even if I don’t understand the concepts in class, I won’t ask my teachers in

class. It looks stupid if I raise a question which everyone knows the answer. I

don’t like answering questions either because I think other students’ English is

better than me. I feel bad sometimes.”

Self-oriented personality in the Chinese culture

Some added that self-oriented personality among Hong Kong Chinese might be

related to their learning style preferences. In Hong Kong, competitions among

students are very fierce. There are less than 20% of school leavers in Hong Kong can

get into university. Many Hong Kong students treat their peers as competitors and

believe that sharing resources with others, such as handouts, may affect their chance

of getting into university.

“In Hong Kong, everyone concerns much about money and personal interests. I

think that’s because Hong Kong is an international financial centre and

  157
 everyone has a strong interest in money. Academic qualifications are of course

related to money. A university graduate of course can get better salary than a

Form Seven graduate. To get into university, many students never work and

study together because they don’t want others have academic improvement. They

never share notes. I’m now studying Business in this college and I find that this

situation is very common among Business students. The higher ability students

usually work together in group projects, and they usually ignore the weaker

students. They know that other higher ability students can help them get better

grades.”

“In Hong Kong, everyone has a fast pace in working, walking and talking. If you

stop and can’t make a decision immediately, you may have lost a chance. In

classroom, when the teacher is teaching a concept and you don’t understand and

ask your classmates, I don’t think they want to answer you because they may

worry that they will miss one or two points which are related to the exam. People

in Hong Kong are quite individualistic sometimes.”

(d) Educational background

This research study involved students from different educational backgrounds.

Nearly 60% of students completed the HKALE curriculum while the others have

completed the HKDSE curriculum. The interviewees were also studying different

subject areas, which include Aviation Studies, Business Administration, Life Sciences,

  158
Information Technology, and Dental Studies.

Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination curriculum

The HKALE aims to prepare students for their further academic studies and/or

employment. Most of the subjects, such as Use of English and most of the Arts and

Humanities subjects only have a one-time examination as the assessment, while some

subjects, such as Science and Chinese Language, may have some continuous

assessment components. Except for Science subjects, which have practical laboratory

work, nearly all of the subjects have paperwork assessments only. Some students

explain that the syllabi of the HKALE may have influence on their learning style

preferences. They believe that the overemphasis on paperwork and examinations may

limit them in developing a wide variety of learning styles.

"The way of learning under the HKALE syllabus was quite boring sometimes.

The lessons mainly focused on paperwork and we had to write a lot in order to

prepare well for the final exam. The Use of English syllabus aims to help

students use English to communicate effectively in different contexts. However,

the exam mainly focuses on paperwork, such as reading and writing. Even for

the listening exam, we also had to read lots of texts, summarize the information

from the recording, and use those information to write different types of texts. All

of the tasks do not involve any group work or communicative activities. We just

studied individually and wrote quietly in class."

  159
 "We just had monotonous work every day. That was write.....write.... and write.

[...] English might be the most interesting subject because at least we had some

oral practices in class. But the oral practices are also very boring. We just had

to follow the exam instructions, read the passages and summarize them. The

most interesting part might be the discussion part."

Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education curriculum

Students who took the HKDSE curriculum generally believe that the curriculum

may help them develop a wide range of learning style preferences. The main reason is

that the HKDSE curriculum requires students to develop different types of learning

skills and students consequentially develop a wider range of learning style

preferences.

According to the Secondary School Curriculum and Assessment Guide

developed by the Hong Kong Education Bureau, the English Language Curriculum

aims at developing learners' general and linguistic knowledge, generic skills (i.e.

communication skills, collaboration skills, critical thinking skills, information

technology skills, problem-solving skills, creativity, self-management skills,

numeracy skills and study skills), and positive attitudes and values. In the new

curriculum, students have to take 3 English elective courses, which include

non-language arts electives (Workplace Communication, Social Issues, Debating and

Sports Communication) and language arts electives (Drama, Short Stories, Poems and

  160
Songs, and Popular Culture). Different from the HKALE Curriculum which focuses

mainly on the explicit teaching of subject knowledge (i.e. grammar, the four language

skills, vocabulary) and traditional paperwork, the Electives provide learners with

opportunities to explore knowledge though different learning approaches and

emphasize the development of generic skills. Instead of traditional paperwork,

students have to demonstrate their learning achievements through different forms,

such as a drama performance, a debate activity, a display or a portfolio consisting of

student's work.

"We had to use different skills to prepare for the HKDSE exam. For example, we

had to conduct a research study and write a long essay on a research topic for

the Liberal Studies exam. We also had to do a great variety of tasks, such as

writing lyrics for a song and having a drama performance, for the continuous

assessments."

"I think the HKDSE system provides us with some opportunities to develop

different skills, and eventually we can develop a wide range of language style

preferences."

However, some students argued that the HKDSE system is similar to the

HKALE syllabus that both emphasize written work.

  161
 "The main objective of the HKDSE system is to prepare students for further

studies and/or work. The Education Bureau introduced this new education

system because many employers find that the students in Hong Kong do not have

enough exposure to the world. I don't think the HKDSE can help that because we

still have exams and we still have to memorize knowledge. The only difference is

we have a new subject - Liberal Studies. But I have no idea about this new

subject because it's also new to the teachers. The only way for us to prepare for

the exam is to memorize the facts. That means it's just the same as the HKALE."

"The new education system still focuses on memorization of knowledge. The

main component of the assessments is still the final exam. We still have to sit in

the classroom and listen to the teachers, and do our work individually."

In this research, due to time limitation, it may be difficult to determine how the

new HKDSE influenced students' learning style preferences. It is clear that more

research should be done on this area.

Study fields

Students interviewed were from different study programmes. They said their

ways of acquiring knowledge in other subjects might influence their learning style

preferences in EAP. For example, some students believed that studying Science

helped them develop a higher preference for analytical learning style and independent

  162
learning style.

“I studied Science in secondary school. I’m familiar with laboratory work and

analyzing things. I developed logical thinking in Science. I’m able to use the

skills I acquired in Science in other subjects. For example, I use my logical

thinking and analytical skills to analyze the English language. I also found that

practical work can enhance my learning.”

“The study of Science makes me understand the importance of analytical

thinking. To discover knowledge, we should have good analytical skill and be

sensitive to the world around us. Newton discovered gravity under an apple tree.

If we are not sensitive to the world, we can’t improve the world. I always prefer

analytical thinking, not only in Science subjects, but also in other subjects,

including English.”

“I’m now studying Aviation Studies. In the programme, we’ve to take some

Business courses, such as Management Studies. Business is a special subject. In

secondary school, I just had to memorize the notes. Now, I understand that we

can’t just memorize things if we really want to learn something. In Business

lessons, we have lots of management real-life case studies. We can’t just

memorize the notes and copy the business theories. We’ve to understand the

theories and analyze the cases carefully. The programme has trained my

  163
 analytical ability… This is the same as English language learning. If we just

memorize the phrases and vocabulary given by our teachers, we may not be able

to use it in daily life. The process of analysis is important. It can deepen our

understanding.”

Study environment and teaching approaches of students' secondary schools

Some students suggested that the schools they attended might have great

influence on them. Some students interviewed had studied in both Chinese-medium

secondary school and English-medium secondary school, while some had studied in

international schools before they were admitted to the college. They said learning in

different schools caused them to develop different learning style preferences.

A student, who transferred from an English-medium secondary school to a

Chinese-medium secondary school in Form 5, identified the differences in learning

approaches in the interview. He said,

“I studied in an English-medium secondary school from Form 1 to Form 5.

Because of my unsatisfactory HKCEE results, I got into a Chinese-medium

secondary school. I found that the teaching approaches were very different. It

seems that EMI secondary school focuses more on independent learning and

gives students more opportunities to explore different English texts. I think that’s

because the students in EMI schools are more intelligent and have a higher

standard of English language. But for the school I attended in Form 6 and Form

  164
 7, my teacher used Chinese to teach English. She translated the vocabulary for

us and gave us lots of handouts. Of course, the students there were weaker. The

teachers there may think that they don’t have the ability to learn independently. I

think if I were educated in a CMI school for my junior secondary education, I

might rely much on my teachers. They gave us too much input. I think the best

way to learn a language is to be able to explore by ourselves.”

In the same interview, another student who had a similar educational background

also said he had similar learning experiences.

“Yes, there’s a huge difference. Some of my friends said the CMI teachers were

too ‘hard-working’. I don’t think spoon-feeding is an effective way to learn a

language.”

A student who studied in an international school in Hong Kong said the way of

learning in international school was quite different from the mainstream schools in

Hong Kong. She said,

“In my school, there were lots of activities in each lesson. My school encouraged

students to discover knowledge, not just sitting in the classroom. We actually

moved a lot in class. Before I got into the international school, I studied in a

local secondary school. The English lessons were quite boring. In contrast, the

  165
 international school designed lots of activities for us, such as role-play, games

and field trips. I like this way of learning because I can use the knowledge right

after I acquired it. It’s more practical and less boring. Maybe it’s called tactile

learning or kinaesthetic learning according to your list…… Yes… and I think it’s

not common in mainstream schools. We also had problem-based learning. I think

it’s becoming more common in mainstream schools after the implementation of

Liberal Studies. We had to do lots of projects. Of course, when I transferred from

a mainstream school to an international, it took me a few months to get used to

this type of learning. But when all subjects use this kind of learning approach,

you’ve to get used to it.”

(e) Teaching styles and learning styles of students' former English teachers

Most student interviewees said the teaching styles of their former English

teachers had a very significant influence on their learning style preferences. They

believed that their learning style preferences may be developed from their former

teachers’ teaching styles. For example, some students said their former English

teachers adopted a relaxed approach which gave them much freedom in choosing the

most appropriate learning approach, such as learning through reading newspapers or

doing language exercises in class. Because of this kind of teaching style, many

students started to develop independent learning and analytical learning. A student

said,

  166
 “We enjoyed lots of freedom in English classroom. My former teacher did not

teach much in class, instead he encouraged us to explore knowledge by ourselves.

For example, he asked us to bring the recent news articles to school and we

discussed that in class. If we didn’t understand the vocabulary, he encouraged us

to look up the dictionary and discuss that with other classmates. We also

highlighted some sentence structures that we hadn’t learnt before. By that time, I

started developing independent learning and analytical abilities. I’ve get used to

it.”

“I studied in a Band 1 secondary school. My teachers always assumed that we

all had a good foundation of English already. They therefore did not teach us

grammar in senior high school. They also assumed that we all should be able to

learn independently, so they did not explain the language much. When we got

into senior form, our teachers always asked us to do lots of public exam past

papers and exercises and then they gave us the answer without explaining them.

If we want to know the explanation, we have to read the grammar reference

books and dictionaries by ourselves. If we really don’t understand that after

reading the books and asking others, the last step is to ask our teachers. For me,

I think it’s Ok to learn in this way.”

On the other hand, some students said that their former teachers adopted a

teacher-centered approach in English lessons. Their teachers provided them with lots

  167
of handouts and spent much time lecturing. Some students mentioned that they were

given lots of vocabulary lists and were required to memorize them. They said they

relied much on teachers' explanations and did not have training on language analysis.

They therefore developed learning style preferences according to their teachers’

teaching styles.

"My school teachers lectured a lot in English lessons. We had lots of handouts

and language exercises. First, they explained the new language items, such as

grammar, new sentence structures and vocabulary, and then showed the

examples. Then, they would ask us to do the exercises. Every week, they gave us

several pages of vocabulary and we had to memorize them. I think this can

enhance my learning because I find this type of teaching is more solid and I

know I’m learning something in each lesson.”

“I relied much on my private tutor. My private tutor said public exam markers

like reading essays which have lots of difficult vocabulary and complicated

sentence structures. He therefore asked us to memorize lots of difficult

vocabulary and sentence structures. He also selected some recent newspaper

articles and highlighted the vocabulary for us. I like this kind of teaching

because I don’t have to do much, just memorize the important parts and sit for

the exam.”

  168
 “It really takes time for me to get used to the new approach of learning in this

college. In the past, my role was to sit and listen in class. I didn’t have to do

much. Now, I have to be more responsible for my own learning and find out the

answers by myself. To be honest, it’s quite difficult to do that. You know, over the

past 12 years, I learnt in this way (teacher-centered approach). It’s not easy for

me to change my own learning style preference. But maybe one or two years

later, my learning style preference may be different. I think it depends on the

teaching styles of teachers.”

“I know that in many Western countries, discovering knowledge and independent

learning are highly valued. But in Hong Kong, it seems that many Hong Kong

teachers prefer their students sitting in classroom and listening to them. If all

students are not exposed to other learning approaches, how can they develop

other learning styles? I think that’s the main reason why many students may not

have a strong preference on independent learning and analytical learning.”

Some students suggested an important Chinese traditional educational concept –

academic inheritance (shicheng 師承). In Chinese society, teachers have a very

important role in students’ learning, and even in their whole life. In addition, teachers

are expected to be good role models academically and morally because students may

imitate their teachers’ behavior and even their way of thinking. Students may be

nurtured to have certain learning style preferences which may be similar to teachers’

  169
learning style preferences as their teachers may share their way of learning with them

through adopting the teaching approaches which match with their own learning styles.

“I do feel that teachers have an important role in my learning process. Inspired

by my former teachers, I understand the importance of learning English and the

effective ways of learning English.”

“In Chinese, a proverb says ‘Be my teacher for a day, be my teacher for a

lifetime (一日為師 終身為師)’. Of course, it’s the 21st century already and it

may not be applicable in some situations. But I still feel that my teachers have

some kind of influence on my learning. The way they taught us has nurtured my

way of thinking.”

“My teachers taught us in this way because they felt that that’s the best way to

learn. I was nurtured under this kind of learning environment and of course, I’ve

develop certain kinds of learning style preferences. Their teaching styles

definitely have some influences on my learning.”

[Link] Students’ perceptions about the relationship between learning styles and

teaching styles

This section aims to answer research question 5:

  170
What is the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong Kong

EAP classrooms at community college level?

The aim of this question is to identify the relationship between learning styles

and teaching styles. Although this study could not explore the relationship between

them quantitatively due to the lack of teaching style quantitative data, the researcher

still tried to explore the possible relationship through qualitative methodology in order

to investigate whether matching or mismatching learning styles and teaching styles

could benefit English language learning in community college contexts. Interestingly,

before the researcher asked the students about relationship between learning styles

and teaching styles, many students had already identified that their former English

teachers’ teaching styles had a great impact on their development of learning styles

and they found that their learning styles might eventually be similar to their former

teachers’ teaching styles. The related results have been presented in the previous

section. The researcher then furthered the discussions by asking them their

perceptions regarding the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles.

Many students said they preferred teachers whose teaching styles were similar to

their learning style preferences.

“In secondary school, we were not allowed to choose our own teacher, class,

  171
 and time slot. But now, in college, we can choose the teachers who can suit me

well. I don’t like group activities. I won’t choose those who like asking students

to do lots of group work in class.”

“I like teachers who can understand my need... For example, I’m quite

exam-oriented and I prefer teachers who can prepare me well for exam and give

me lots of useful handouts.”

“I like teachers who can respond to my learning styles… and similar to my

styles. It makes me feel easier to learn in a familiar learning environment.”

Some students explained that they preferred English teachers who could have a

good match between teaching styles and learning styles due to their English language

proficiency.

“I feel more comfortable with teachers who can understand my styles. My

English language proficiency is quite low. I don’t want to spend time on

adapting to a new learning environment which requires me to develop new

learning styles. It’s quite distracting!”

“I’m not confident with my English, but I’m now happy with my learning styles.

I’m not sure what will happen if I have to be exposed to new styles.”

  172
 “If my teachers’ styles are so different from mine, I doubt whether I’ve to ability

to deal with the foreign language and the new styles at the same time. Luckily, at

this stage, my lecturers still suit me well!”

Some students also commented that the limited time spending with their teachers

in every semester cause them had a higher preference to teachers whose teaching

styles could match with their learning styles well.

“Every semester is too short! We’ve to change our English lecturer in every 3

months. Sometimes it may take plenty of time for me to adapt to the new

environment. When I start to get used to a new style, the semester may have

ended already. A new teacher who has other teaching styles comes.”

“Sometimes I don’t like the tertiary system. I’ve to do the add/drop procedure in

every semester in order to ensure I’ve the same teacher. I don’t want to adapt to

the new environment in every semester. In secondary school, we had the same

teacher for the whole year. Even though the teacher used some new teaching

approaches, I still had time to get used to it. But now, we can only spend 3 hours

per week with the lecturer and after 3 months, we have another lecturer.

However, surprisingly, some high language proficiency students said a mismatch

  173
between their learning styles and their teachers’ teaching styles may not cause a

significant impact on their classroom learning, unless there is a large discrepancy

between their styles and teaching styles which they cannot accept.

“I think every person, including teachers, should have his/her own styles. It’s

impossible to have a teacher who is the same as yours. In tertiary classroom,

self-learning is very important. The role of teacher should be like a facilitator.

They may sometimes bring new learning experiences to us.”

“Tertiary learning is different from secondary schools. The teachers are from

different countries, and have different backgrounds. As a tertiary student, we

should be open-minded and welcome any new challenges. When we get to society,

we can’t force our boss to respond to our needs, and think of us all the time. The

society is full of diversity.”

“I find that the teachers in this college are very experienced. At this stage, I still

can’t find a teacher whose teacher styles are unacceptable to be. I’m also quite

open-minded… little bit different might not affect me much. But I’ve heard of a

classmate telling me that a teacher always had group discussions most of the

time in every lesson and just asked them to come out and present. I don’t think I

can accept that because I think the lesson should at least have other components

which are similar to my styles... at least the teacher can include some individual

  174
 work. That’s totally out of my expectation of what an English lesson should be.”

“It depends on how much difference my styles and their styles are. Some

differences should be fine for me, but huge differences might be a problem for me,

maybe most of my classmates.”

The interview findings revealed that different students had different perceptions

towards the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles. The student

interviewees identified that English language proficiency and the length of time spent

with their English teachers were essential factors related to their perceptions towards

learning styles and teaching styles.

4.3.2 EAP teachers' English language teaching styles

This study cannot show the quantitative results of EAP teachers’ teaching styles.

The main reasons are presented in Chapter 4. Therefore, the researcher conducted

several individual interviews with the teacher participants in order to gain a more

detailed picture of their teaching styles. In the interviews, the teachers were asked to

identify their general teaching styles, along with the possible factors which might

influence their development of teaching styles. They were also asked to comment on

their beliefs about students’ learning styles. Responses from the teacher participants

were then grouped into different areas to correspond with research questions.

  175
[Link] English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community college teachers

in EAP contexts

This section attempts to answer research question 3:

What are the English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community college

teachers in EAP contexts?

Most of the teachers challenged the reliability and validity of the teaching style

questionnaire developed by the researcher and said they had difficulty identifying

their teaching styles through the questionnaire. All interviewees believed that

conducting interviews would be a more effective way for them to explain their

teaching styles. The main reasons they gave were that they believed that their

teaching style might vary depending on students’ learning styles, level of students,

course objectives, and the learning culture of the college that they were teaching in.

A teacher who had 20-years of ESL teaching experience said,

“I think I’m a flexible teacher. Different students may expect their teachers

differently. I know my job is not satisfying students’ expectation, but I can’t

force them to adjust themselves in order to fit my teaching styles. We have to put

ourselves into their shoes.”

  176
 Some teachers added,

“It really depends on the learning culture. I was educated in America. To be

honest, I like their educational philosophy. But I think it’s quite difficult to

practise that in Hong Kong because students are not familiar with that. In Hong

Kong, I still prefer the traditional way of teaching. It also depends on the level of

students. For students who have high language proficiency, maybe I’ll have

more teaching styles in order to help them learning in different ways. But for

students who have limited language proficiency, I might have to use the teaching

styles which they are familiar with first. I don’t think the questionnaire can

really identify my teaching styles accurately.”

“My teaching styles vary a lot. I know you want to focus on EAP teachers’

teaching styles only. But EAP is still quite broad. Some EAP courses mainly

focus on public speaking and listening and of course I would prefer auditory all

the time, but won’t prefer visual. We’ve to refer back to the learning objectives

of the course. Some EAP courses are for a specific group of students, for

example Arts and Humanities students. Those students are not very active and

sometimes quiet, I think I won’t prefer kinaesthetic teaching styles for those

students. But prefer it for my Science class.”

“My teaching style is based on the curriculum and the intended learning

  177
 outcomes of the course. Some courses might expect students to learning

independently, while some might prefer them to have lots of practical

experiences. Teaching styles might be very personal....just like what you said...

my own educational philosophy. But I think I can’t stick to my own teaching

philosophy all the time because we have to interact with the students. My

teaching philosophy is to understand students’ needs and based on their needs,

I’ve to do something.”

A teacher said he would adjust their styles based on the course evaluation

comments from students.

“Every time after reading the students’ feedback forms for my teaching, I keep

on changing my styles. I do believe that students should be exposed to a wide

variety of teaching styles. But I find that some students really have difficulty

learning under some teaching styles. For example, I expect students to ask me

questions when they have problems. But my students expect us to approach them

and give them support. At the end, I gave up. Personally, I prefer independent

teaching style... but in reality I still prefer to give them lots of handouts, tell them

what they have to do...because this is what they expect.”

The interview findings clearly showed that teachers reported that they vary

teaching styles in different educational contexts. The teacher participants, including

  178
the researcher, could not identify the specific types of teaching styles they had. It can

be concluded that teachers’ teaching styles are based on several factors. The next

section will explain the possible factors which might influence their teaching styles.

[Link] Factors influencing EAP teachers' teaching style preferences

The section summarizes the responses given to the study’s fourth research

question:

To what extent do different variables relate to Hong Kong community teachers’

language teaching styles in EAP contexts?

Teacher participants summarized that there were six factors influencing their

English language teaching styles. The six factors included: teachers’ personal learning

style preferences; teachers’ cultural and educational background; students’ learning

style preferences; students’ English language proficiency; teaching areas and syllabi

of EAP courses; and learning and teaching culture of the institution.

(a) Teachers' personal learning style preferences

Most of the teachers said their teaching styles were based on their personal

learning style preferences. Some believed their personal learning style preferences

could lead to academic success and expected students also could develop certain

  179
learning style preferences that might be similar to their learning styles. They could

develop their teaching styles according to their personal learning style preferences.

They said,

“I think my teaching styles are more or less similar to my learning styles.”

“My teaching styles may be based on my learning styles because I think that’s

the best way to learn and I may adopt the ways of learning to my teaching. I

hope my students can also be a successful language learner.”

“I’m using my own way of learning to help students to learn. For example, I

think being critical is important in language learning, I may ask students lots of

questions in class and encourage them to think.”

“When I read the questions in your questionnaire, I noticed I might tend to

answer the questions based on my learning. Maybe this indicates that I teach

according to my learning style preferences.”

“I’m more comfortable to teach in way which can match with my learning

styles.”

  180
 As described in the previous sections on learning style preferences, teachers’

learning style preferences were found to be related to other variables, such as their

cultural and educational backgrounds.

(b) Teachers' cultural and educational background

There is very limited research about the relationship between teachers' cultural

background and their teaching style preferences. Due to the limited number of

research participants, this study cannot make conclusive comments about the teaching

style preferences of teachers from different cultural and educational background using

statistical data. However, the interviews suggested that teachers' cultural and

educational background may be related to their teaching styles.

A mainland Chinese teacher who was educated in China said,

"Comparing my teaching styles with those English teachers in China, I find that

English teachers in China spend much more time on vocabulary. They always

encourage students to memorize vocabulary and language expressions. I think

that's because of the Chinese culture. I do believe that memorizing is the basics

of learning. But of course the students should also be able to use the language

after memorizing the rules. “

Some Hong Kong Chinese teacher who received education in Hong Kong and

  181
English-speaking countries said,

"In Hong Kong, many teachers like giving drilling practices. In the Western

world, it may not be common because they focus more on communicative skills.

A teacher who receives education in Hong Kong may not be the same as those

who study overseas. People in Hong Kong have a strong belief that practice

makes perfect, but their practices mainly are the drilling exercises. In Australia,

I had more experience to use English communicate with others in class. Those

experiences can clearly influence my way of teaching."

“I don’t like the Hong Kong learning culture either. Language learning should

have lots of interaction between teacher and learners. But it seems that many

traditional Chinese teachers prefer their students to sit and listen. It’s not

common in the Western countries. Luckily my parents allowed me to study in

Australia.”

A Taiwanese teacher who was raised in America and the United Kingdom

commented that the American educational system and teaching philosophy were

different from the Hong Kong educational system. He said,

“In America, students wouldn’t just sit here, copy the notes, and listen to the

lecturers. They have to take an active role in class and have to think critically all

  182
 the time. Teachers won’t guide the students step-up-step and have lots of

scaffolding. But I notice that the students in Hong Kong are so different from the

American students, they always wait for the answers and expect teachers to give

them lots of guidance or even exam tips. It seems like they don’t want to think.

They also expect teachers to give them answers. As a Chinese, I believe

sometimes the Chinese culture can really affect us. Luckily, I was educated in

America and I understand how important critical thinking is. I believe students

should also develop critical thinking. I think my teaching styles are greatly

influenced by the Western culture. Sometimes I want to inspire them by using

what I acquired from America.”

A British teacher said,

“Students should be given opportunities to talk. Many Hong Kong students are

reluctant to speak in class. I think it’s not common in my culture. In ESL

teaching, we should always try our best to enable students to communicate.”

The interviews showed that teachers’ educational and cultural background could

affect their development of teaching styles. The learning styles they developed from

the educational and cultural experience could eventually become their teaching styles.

Understanding how they acquired knowledge may help to understand their teaching

styles.

  183
(c) Students' learning style preferences

In this research, many teachers reported that they were teaching according to the

learning styles of students. They considered that their teaching styles might change

unconsciously when they taught students who have different learning styles.

A teacher who had experience teaching in China said,

"Personally, I liked kinaesthetic learning and group learning when I was a

student. However, I don't think my personal learning style preferences are

directly related to my teaching styles. Many students do not like moving a lot in

class, especially in China. At the beginning, I planned lots of group activities

which required them to move a lot. Eventually, I found that it might not be

effective for them because they were not interested in those activities. I started to

develop other teaching style preferences

Another teacher said,

"It's not practical to ask the students what they prefer, unless we do a research

on that. We design the activities according to our experience. We know what

activities can motivate students and what types of tasks are useful for their

learning. The higher ability classes may have different learning style preferences

  184
 from the lower ability classes. Even though I prefer a particular learning style

personally, it may not be successful in some classes. That's why when I teach

different students, I may have different teaching style preference."

A teacher said,

"My teaching styles may be related to students' learning styles. I think I may

have different teaching style preferences when I teach different types of

students."

In this interview, some teachers noticed when there is a mismatch of their

teaching styles and students' learning styles, they will narrow the gap between their

teaching styles and students' learning styles first and will gradually guide their

students to develop other learning styles. Some teachers said,

"I think we have to provide students with an affective learning environment first.

Students may feel anxious and frustrated if they find that they have difficulty

working with teachers whose teaching styles do not suit their way of learning

well. Once I can build a good relationship, I can guide them and design

activities which help them develop the learning style preferences which they may

not be familiar with."

  185
 "Some students may feel shy to work with other students as they used to learn

individually when they were in secondary school. If I force them to work with

others in the first few lessons, they may be very nervous and this will affect their

learning. To help them develop group learning, I usually ask them to do their

work individually, and then in pairs, and after they have developed good

relationship with their classmates, they can do the group work activities. In

contrast, some students may prefer group work and have difficulty working

individually. I will guide them to develop individual learning style by designing

some pair work activities and simple individual tasks."

Although this research cannot provide quantitative data on how students'

learning styles affect teachers' teaching styles, the interviews showed that students'

learning style preferences may affect teachers' teaching style preferences to a certain

extent. When teachers find that there is a mismatch between their teaching style

preferences and learning style preferences, they will eventually develop other

teaching style preferences in order to provide students with an affective learning

environment. At the same time, some teachers may even guide students to develop

other learning styles by designing a variety of tasks.

(d) Students' English language proficiency

Many teachers suggested that students' English language proficiency might

influence their teaching style preferences. They found that the lower ability students

  186
might need more support and guidance from them, and they therefore had a stronger

preference on dependent teaching style when they taught those students. They also

avoided providing too much analytical work as this might discourage students from

learning English when they find the learning tasks are too difficult. Teachers might

also have a high preference on group learning for those students as usually those

students may not have much confidence in English. In contrast, when teachers had to

teach higher ability students, they might use a wider variety of teaching style

preferences, when compared to lower ability students. They explained that higher

English language proficiency students were more willing and had more ability to

accept the teaching styles which do not match their learning styles well. They also

found that higher ability students usually had a wider range of learning styles than

lower ability students. The teacher participants explained,

"It depends on students' English language proficiency. For those students who

have lower English language proficiency, they may be nervous and lack

confidence when they do the English tasks in class. If I follow my teaching style

preferences and force them to develop the related learning style preferences,

they may not be interested in my lessons. I usually prefer to teach the lower

ability students according to their learning styles."

"I think the higher ability students can learn individually and have a higher

preference on tasks which require them to think. For the lower ability students,

  187
 they may require lots of support from teachers and their classmates. They also

do not have much confidence to do a task individually. So, I usually encourage

the lower ability classes to do the tasks in groups, especially the difficult ones."

"It's quite difficult to say which teaching styles I prefer because I have different

teaching style preferences in different classes. When I teach the lower level

students, I may have less teaching styles preferences. But then I teach the higher

level students, I may have more, because those higher level students have

developed more learning style preferences when they have more English

learning experience."

Interview findings suggested that students' English language proficiency can

influence teachers' teaching style preferences. Teachers may have a wider range of

teaching style preferences when they teach higher proficiency students, but may have

less teaching style preferences when they teach lower ability students. They also have

different teaching style preferences when they teach different students. In this

research, quantitative analysis could not be done to investigate the actual relationship

between students' English language proficiency and teachers' teaching style

preferences. However, there is evidence showing that English language proficiency

may be related to teachers' teaching style preferences to a certain extent.

(e) Teaching areas, syllabi and course materials of EAP courses

  188
 This research mainly focuses on the teaching styles of teachers who teach

English for Academic Purposes at community college level. Most research studies are

about the teaching styles of teachers in general or ESL teachers. They may ignore the

fact that teachers who teach different aspects of English (e.g. English for Academic

Purposes, Workplace English, General English) may have different teaching style

preferences. This study has limited the research area, focusing on EAP teachers only,

and has found that EAP teachers may have different teaching style preferences when

they teach different aspects of EAP: academic reading, writing, speaking and listening.

More importantly, different syllabi in different colleges may have different foci on

language skills. For example, a teacher explained that students usually have to take

two EAP courses in the 2-year curriculum. The first-year EAP course focuses more

on academic speaking and listening, while the second-year course may focus more on

academic reading and writing. When they teach the two courses, they may have

different teaching style preferences. Some teachers said,

"I'm teaching EAP courses in two colleges. The courses are of the same level,

but the content is totally different. This college focuses mainly on academic

writing skills, and little bit on academic reading. Another college that I am

teaching focuses on the four skills. I find that I have different teaching style

preferences when I teach the EAP course in different colleges. For example, in

this college, I prefer visual more, and have less preference on the auditory one

than another college which focuses on the four skills."

  189
 "The syllabus can influence my teaching style preferences.[...] In many colleges,

the EAP courses usually focus on academic writing and reading, such as

paraphrasing and summarizing, writing different types of academic essays etc.

Some colleges encourage students to learn academic vocabulary, give academic

presentations and participate in seminars. It's quite difficult to identify which

teaching styles I prefer when I teach EAP. For academic writing, I won't prefer

the auditory one, but prefer the visual one. For teaching academic vocabulary, I

prefer both. That's why I didn't know how to fill out the questionnaire."

Other teachers also found that it is “horses for courses” when they teach EAP

because the same set of teaching styles may not be effective in all EAP courses. It is

important to adjust their teaching styles according to the syllabus and intended

learning outcomes.

"I usually read the course outline first and then decide on my way of teaching.

Personally, I believe it's important to have a wide variety of teaching styles. But

sometimes I may have a higher preference on a particular teaching style than

another one when I teach different aspects, such as reading and speaking."

"For academic writing, I prefer visual, tactile, individual, sometimes may be

group, depending on students' preference. I also prefer dependent, analytical,

  190
 and teacher-modeling. Academic reading may be similar to academic writing,

but I don't think teacher-modeling is useful. For academic listening and speaking,

I prefer auditory, individual, group, independent, and analytical. Teacher

modeling is also my major teaching style preference for speaking. [...] Different

courses on EAP have different focus and key learning points. Some may focus

more reading and writing, and some may focus more and speaking and listening.

My teaching style preferences are based on what students have to learn."

"I think it depends on the content and the intended learning outcomes of the

course. The course outline usually lists what students have to learn, including

the skills they have to acquire, such as group learning, critical thinking, and

individual learning. I usually prefer to teach according to the intended learning

outcomes."

The interview findings show that teachers' teaching style preferences are to some

extent influenced by the content of the syllabus. However, due to the limited number

of teacher participants, it cannot identify the major and minor teaching style

preferences of teachers when they teach different aspects of EAP using statistical data.

Furthermore some participants stated that their teaching styles are directly related to

the design of course materials provided by course coordinators. One teacher said,

“Some course coordinators may put more emphasis on individual learning,

  191
 while some may include more group activities. Many colleges usually require all

teachers to follow the teaching materials closely for fairness. As a teacher, I’ve

limited control on the materials. My teaching should be based on the materials

provided. The course materials are usually related to the assessments designed

by the course coordinators. We may have to extend or adjust our teaching styles

little bit sometimes.”

“I agree that how I teach is sometimes based on the materials provided. I do

personally have my own preferences, but sometimes I may adjust little bit in

order to make sure that my teaching styles could still help students fulfil the

assessment requirements and finish the learning tasks.”

(f) Learning and teaching culture of the institution

Many teachers in this study have experience teaching at different tertiary

institutions in Hong Kong, the mainland China and overseas. They found that

different institutions have different learning and teaching cultures, which are directly

related to their teaching style preferences. For example, some teachers reported that

some tertiary institutions emphasize much problem-based learning - students are

encouraged to solve problems independently. As most of the students get used to this

type of learning and they understand the advantages of problem-based learning

approach, it is easier to promote independent learning and analytical learning in class.

Teachers who teach in those institutions, therefore, have a strong preference for an

  192
analytical teaching style and independent teaching style.

"The institution that I taught at before always emphasizes problem-based

learning approach. All of the subjects, including Sciences and Humanities,

require students to find out problems and solve the problems independently. In

that college, I prefer problem-based learning because students can learn the

most by solving problems themselves. However, I don't have a high preference

on that kind of learning in this college because many students do not know much

about it. If I use this approach in class, first the students may find it difficult to

follow the lessons, second, they can't learn much because they don't have the

skills to find and solve problems, third, they may say that they didn't learn

anything in class because they have to solve the problems by themselves. I think

it depends on the learning culture of the college."

"I think I've to follow the culture of the college. This college is a business college,

which aims at training business professionals. There are some learning styles

that I think business students should have, such as group learning and

independent learning. I know that the college encourages teachers to implement

collaborative learning in class. Many courses in this college require students to

have group work activities. I, therefore, have a strong preference to group

learning too. However, the college that I taught before did not have much group

work."

  193
 "To a certain extent, my teaching styles are related to the learning culture of the

colleges that I teach or taught. Ten years ago, when I was teaching at another

college, I preferred independent teaching styles because of the college. But now,

I find that my teaching styles have changed. I still think that independent

teaching style is important, but I also prefer teacher-modeling. I find that

students in this college expect teachers to give them lots of support, such as

essay samples, and lots of handouts. If I don't do that, they may not be able to

follow my lessons. Preparing lots of handouts and guidelines is the culture of

this college. But anyway, I think this can enhance students' understanding of

language. I think I am developing my teaching styles."

This study cannot provide conclusive evidence to show what kind of learning

and teaching culture is related to a particular teaching style, due to the limited number

of teacher participants. However, it can show that the learning and teaching culture of

an institution may be related to teachers' teaching styles.

[Link] EAP teachers’ perceptions about the relationship between learning styles

and teaching styles

This section aims to answer research question 5:

What is the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong

  194
 Kong EAP classrooms at community college level?

As stated in the earlier section regarding to EAP students’ perception towards the

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles, statistical data on teaching

styles could not be obtained and so this study could not find the relationship between

learning styles and teaching styles quantitatively. Nevertheless, interviews were

conducted to explore teachers’ perceptions towards the relationship between learning

styles and teaching styles regarding to English language learning. In the previous

section regarding factors influencing teachers’ teaching styles, some teachers

identified their students’ learning styles might be related to their development of

teaching styles. This part will further explain teachers’ perceptions about the

relationship between learning styles and teaching styles.

Most of the teachers agreed that a good match between learning styles and

teaching styles could help to build an affective learning environment.

“Students feel comfortable to learn in an environment which they are familiar

with.”

“If students find their styles match with teachers’ styles, I think they may give

high scores to those teachers in the learning experience survey.”

“I’m not sure whether I’m trying to design activities according to my students’

  195
 styles or not. But I find that they are happier to have activities which suit their

styles.”

“I think even for me, as an advanced language user, still prefer to have teachers

could really know me well and could match me well.”

“My teaching is really up to my students.... I think students could learn

efficiently in a happy and comfortable environment.”

At the same time, some teachers pointed out that differences between learning

styles and teaching styles exist, but students could still learn effectively.

“Although I usually include activities which could match with students’ learning

styles, I sometimes have some class activities which aim at helping students to

step out from their comfort zone. As long as I give enough support or scaffolding

to my students, they could handle it. I believe students should be able to learn in

different environments.”

“My students are adults. I believe they have the ability to learn with someone

whose styles are different from them. They should be flexible if they want to be

successful in the society.”

  196
 “I think if the difference is moderate, that should be fine for them. Just make sure

we can them support and help them step-by-step!”

“Whether the difference will affect their learning really depends on teachers’

teaching ability. A successful teacher should be able to bring new learning

experiences to their students. Students may feel not comfortable at the beginning.

But if you give them lots of encouragement and support, they should be able to

tackle the challenges they have to face.

The interview results indicated that teachers generally believed matching

learning styles and teaching styles could help build an affective learning environment,

but also commented that some differences between learning styles and teaching styles

could bring benefits to students. They also advised that teachers should provide

support to students if they found that learning styles and teaching styles were

mismatched.

4.4 Chapter summary

This chapter presents the qualitative and qualitative data collected from students

and teachers.

The results of students’ questionnaire survey suggested that different groups of

students have different learning style preferences when they study EAP. Additionally,

  197
there were a number of factors, such as, gender, year of study, major field, type of

programme, and educational background, that were related to their learning style

preferences.

The student participants further reflected on their learning styles based on the

questionnaire survey and identified the possible factors influencing their learning

styles in the interviews. They also commented on their beliefs about the relationship

between learning styles and teaching styles in relation to language learning in EAP

classrooms. Due to the lack of quantitative data from teacher participants, the

researcher could only collect data from interviews. The qualitative data collected is

useful for understanding teachers’ teaching styles and provides tentative explanations

for why self-report questionnaire surveys may not be an appropriate research

instrument for measuring teaching styles. In addition, this chapter also suggested

factors influencing teaching styles and teachers’ perception about the relationship

between learning styles and teaching styles. The next chapter will explain and

interpret both quantitative and qualitative data with reference to the learning and

teaching style literature.

  198
Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Overview

This chapter discusses both quantitative and qualitative findings with regard to

Hong Kong community college students’ learning style preferences and teachers’

teaching style preferences regarding English for academic purposes (EAP).

As outlined in Chapter 3, this study aims to address five primary research

questions. Those questions aim at:

1) identifying the English language learning style preferences of Hong Kong

community college students in EAP contexts;

2) examining how different variables relate to Hong Kong community students’

language learning style preference in EAP contexts;

3) identifying the English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community

college teachers in EAP contexts;

4) investigating how different variables relate to Hong Kong community

teachers’ language teaching styles in EAP contexts; and

5) exploring the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in

Hong Kong EAP classrooms at community college level.

Findings from this study indicate that there are a wide range of factors that could

be related to students’ learning styles and teachers’ teaching styles. The chapter will

  199
discuss the interaction between learning styles and teaching styles. Findings are

compared and contrasted with the literature on English language learning styles and

teaching styles and are used to draw implications for classroom language learning.

5.2 Hong Kong community college students’ English language learning style

preferences in EAP contexts

Findings from the questionnaire survey indicated that students preferred teacher

modeling most and preferred visual learning the least when they were studying EAP.

Additionally, most of the students used minor3 learning style modes, including visual,

auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group, individual, independent, dependent, analytic and

teacher modelling learning styles.

As there are very limited previous research studies on learning styles of Hong

Kong ESL/EFL students studying EAP, the researcher could only compare the

findings with the previous research on Chinese ESL/EFL students in general. The

research findings of this study are to some extent inconsistent with the previous

findings on Chinese ESL/EFL students’ English language learning style preferences.

Most of the learning style research (Chu, 2010; Jones, 1997; Melton, 1990; Park,

1997; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987) demonstrates that Chinese ESL/EFL students had
                                                                                                               
3
Major learning style (mean scores: 20-24) indicates learners prefer this mode of learning
strongly and uses it for important learning. Minor learning style (mean scores: 12-19)
indicates area where learners can function well. Negative learning style (mean scores: 11 or
less) shows that learners may have difficulty learning in that way.

  200
major preferences for some learning styles, such as kinaesthetic and tactile learning.

However, in this study, large numbers of students chose minor, not major, learning

modes. Reid (1998) explains that some participants, for example, Siberian and

Japanese students in her study, might prefer to respond moderately to surveys and

might not prefer to choose “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”. It seems that most

of the students in this study chose the “moderate” options. Similar to some studies on

Chinese learners (Chu 2010; Peacock, 2001), very few students had negative learning

modes, and there was no negative preference for any learning styles in general. This

may demonstrate that most of the students had multiple learning styles, though many

students chose minor learning modes.

Several learning style research studies (Chen, 1999; Chu, 2010; Jones, 1997;

Melton, 1990; Park, 1997; Peacock, 2001 Reid, 1987) indicate that Chinese ESL /

EFL students have a relatively higher preference for visual learning when compared

with other sensory learning styles, and therefore these researchers may consider

Chinese ESL / EFL learners as “visual learners”. However, it should be noted that

those studies mainly focused on Chinese ESL/EFL students studying general English,

instead of EAP. Different from these studies, which mainly focus on general English,

findings from the current study show that visual learning had the lowest mean value.

That means EAP students did not have a very strong preference for visual aids, such

as PowerPoint slides, handouts and notes on the board, when compared with other

learning styles.

Possible reasons for the above finding could not be found in the previous

  201
literature as there are very limited research studies which compare students studying

general English and EAP. Nearly all of the studies assume EAP is under the umbrella

of English language education and that learners might have the same learning style

preferences towards EAP and general English. One possible reason for the differences

is that written language, especially academic English, is relatively more

grammatically and lexically complex than the spoken language (Biber, 1988; Biber,

Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999; Cook, 1997). For example, written

language has more noun-based phrases, more nominalisations, more lexical variation,

more long sequences of prepositional phrases and more attributive adjectives than

spoken language. Therefore, EAP students who have just started learning academic

English might have difficulty understanding and reading academic written texts,

especially on their own. Students might, therefore, have a lower preference for visual

learning.

In addition to this finding, students did not have a strong preference towards

individual learning in this study. The results seem to be consistent with some research

studies (Chu, 1997; Jones, 1997; Peacock, 2001; Winter, 1996) on Chinese ESL / EFL

learners that Hong Kong students prefer a collaborative learning environment which

could foster deep learning (Chan & Watkins, 1994).  

  Interestingly, the mean value for group learning (M = 16.8430) was close to that

for individual learning (M = 16.6013) in this study, though students had a higher

preference for group learning. It seems that these results contradict each other.

Comparing the results with other research, group learning style was negative in Reid’s

  202
(1987) study and Melton’s (1990), and minor in Jones (1997), Chu (1997) and

Peacock’s (2001) studies. The reason for this is not explained by those researchers.

To examine the reasons why this might be, the researcher asked the student

interviewees to explain their preferences towards individual and group learning. Some

students pointed out that their preferences were according to the nature of the learning

task, the English language proficiency of their peers, and time constraints. For

example, a student said that if time allowed they did prefer to form study groups or

discuss the difficult topics together, rather than studying alone. Furthermore, some

students said that if their peers had good language proficiency, they preferred to study

together so as to foster deeper learning. However, they did not prefer to do group

assessments, such as report writing and oral presentations, with students whose

language ability was too low. Therefore, the results of this study may not be

contradictory as students preferred group learning more than individual learning when

time allowed and when they had peers who had similar or good language proficiency.

Among the ten learning styles investigated, the one students preferred most was

the teacher-modeling learning style. That means students preferred teachers to give

them lots of examples, show them how to do things or demonstrate ways of thinking,

and apply language concepts in different situations directly. The new learning style

item “teacher-modeling” was developed by the researcher in this study. The teaching

style “personal model”, which has the similar meaning of the term “teacher-modeling”

in this study, was identified by Grasha’s (1996) teaching style model. There is a

dearth of studies that have investigated Chinese ESL / EFL students’ preference

  203
towards the personal model teaching style.

The student interviewees in this study explained the reason for this. They pointed

out that the learning culture and the exam-oriented education system in Hong Kong

might contribute to their high preference towards teacher-modeling learning style. In

the interviews, many students mentioned that they expected their teachers showing

them how to work out the answers or analyse the questions step-by-step as they had to

ensure they could meet the standard of public examinations. In English writing classes,

they preferred their teachers to show them how to analyse questions and brainstorm

ideas. They also liked their teachers to show them good writing samples in order to

understand the standard that they have to meet in examinations. Therefore, when they

studied EAP at the tertiary level, they also preferred their teachers to show them

sample assignments so as to understand their teachers’ expectations.

In this study, the students also indicated that they had a high preference towards

independent learning. The results of this study seem to be inconsistent with the

picture portrayed by some earlier research on Hong Kong Chinese students’ learning

styles which describes those students as passive and dependent learners (Balla et al.,

1991 Murphy, 1987; Pierson, 1996). In contrast, the findings confirm those studies

(Chan, Spratt, & Humphreys, 2002; Gieve & Clark, 2005; Ho & Crookall, 1995;

Jones, 1995; Lee, 1998; Littlewood, 1996) which indicate that Hong Kong students

have a positive attitudes towards independent learning. The studies which show the

unfavourable picture of Chinese students’ reaction to independent learning usually

depended on researchers’ observation or teachers’ response; while studies which

  204
reported learners favoured independent learning usually involved self-report

questionnaire survey designed for specific groups of students in specific contexts.

Seemingly, the great contrast could be due to the differences in research methods.

Students might have a high preference towards independent learning, but might not be

able to show their learning style to their teachers and researchers due to some

unfavourable situations, such as poor learning environment and curriculum design.

Clearly, there is a discrepancy between students’ own beliefs and teachers and

researchers’ beliefs towards students.

In addition to independent learning style, students had a high preference towards

analytic learning style. Many western researchers (Biggs, 1996; Ballard & Clanchy,

1991; Carson, 1992; Connor, 1996; Cross & Hitchcock, 2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2003)

describe Chinese learners’ learning style as reproductive, rather than analytical. Those

studies usually assume that memorization and analytical thinking are mutually

exclusive The questionnaire survey in this study cannot conclude whether students

liked learning by memorization or not, but can conclude the learners in this study

preferred analytical thinking in order to foster deep learning. This finding was

consistent with some recent literature (Biggs, 1996; Chalmers & Volet, 1997; Chan,

1999; 2001; Kember, 2000; Kennedy, 2002; Mathias, Bruce & Newton, 2013; Tan,

2011; Tavakol & Dennick, 2010; Watkins, 2010) which challenge those stereotyped

views on Chinese learners. Prosser and Trigwell (1999) point out that “deep learning

approach” and “surface learning approach” could be simultaneously present during

students’ learning process. Some may argue that students in this study preferred

  205
teacher-modeling more than analytical thinking and that the results might be

contradictory, as students might follow the teachers’ examples, without any in-depth

thinking. The questionnaire survey findings can further confirm that

teaching-modeling and analytic learning styles can co-exist in Chinese students’

learning process (Jin & Cotazzi, 2006; Tweed & Lehman, 2002). In this study, the

participants were at the beginning stage of learning EAP. Students in this study might

have a higher preference towards teacher-modeling than analytic learning as they

might prefer to consolidate their knowledge through following the models given by

teachers more than analytic learning at this stage, though they still thought that

analytic learning was important in learning EAP.

To sum up, the students in this study had multiple learning styles when they

learnt EAP, though most of them indicated that they had minor learning styles, instead

of major learning styles. The questionnaire survey also concluded that there was

discrepancy between other learning style researchers’ observation of Chinese students

and students’ own perception towards their learning styles. Many researchers assume

that the Chinese Confucian culture has great impacts on Chinese students’ learning

styles, but ignored the fact that many factors, such as learning environment,

educational curriculum and classroom practices, and so forth. could also have great

influence on students’ learning styles. Gieve and Clark’s (2005) study on Chinese

students studying in the UK found that learning context seemed to have the power to

promote certain learning styles which contradicted the general expectations of

Chinese learners. Littlewood (1999) also recognises that the influence of culturally

  206
shared beliefs and practices on learning practices is moderated or even negated in

individual differences. Therefore, this study also explored other possible factors, such

as gender, educational background, and learning contexts, and so forth. which might

be related to students’ learning styles. Additionally, it was found that students’

learning styles are complex, and might be flexible, that students might have different

learning styles in different learning stages. It might be problematic to assume that

students have certain learning styles at all learning stages. For example, in this study,

students had both teacher modeling and analytic learning styles. Some researchers

might consider that teacher modeling learning style as surface learning approach as

students might simply copy or recite the knowledge from the authorities without

much thinking, but this study showed that students also preferred analytic learning

style. The reason for this might be students prefer to learn from the authorities first

and then they use the knowledge they acquired from the authorities to start the next

stage of learning – applying deep learning approach by analytical thinking. Therefore,

more research can be done to investigate students’ learning style preferences in

different learning stages.

5.3 Factors influencing Hong Kong community college students’ language

learning style preferences in EAP contexts

5.3.1 Gender

The questionnaire survey showed that male students had significantly higher

  207
preference for tactile, independent and analytic learning styles than female students.

The findings were consistent with Oxford’s (1995) research that males tended to be

more tactile and analytical than females. It also confirmed several learning style

studies (Amir & Jelas, 2010; Baneshi et al., 2014; Kraft, 1976; O’ Faithaigh, 2000)

that males had higher preference towards independent learning than females. Those

studies explained that the process of socialization may contribute to the differences,

but did not explain clearly why males or females preferred certain learning styles than

the opposite sex. The student interviewees did not provide explanations on this. A

number of researchers (Baneshi et al., 2014; Severines & ten Dam, 1997) explain that

the differences in learning styles could be due to a great variety of factors, such as

educational backgrounds and culture. Watkins and Hattie (1981) found that the

differences between males and females vary across their study fields. The possible

reasons for the differences might be more males than females study Science courses

which promote tactile, independent and analytic learning styles. Although this study

has provided information related to their major study fields at the community college

level, but lacked the information related to their fields of studies in secondary school.

It is possible that students majored in Science in secondary school, but chose to study

other major fields other than Science at community college level. It is common that

more males than females choose to study Science in Hong Kong. There are other

possible reasons for the differences. This study, therefore, also explored other

possible factors related to their development of learning styles.

  208
5.3.2 Year of study

In this study, the mean values of learning styles of Year 2 students were

generally higher than Year 1 students, except group learning. Year 2 students had

significantly higher preferences for auditory, tactile, analytic, and teacher-modeling

significantly than did Year 1 students. Most of the learning style studies compare

the mean value of students according to their length of time studying English, but

very few compare the year of study in a particular programme. All community college

students have to take two English for Academic Purposes courses in order to meet the

graduation requirements of the college. All Year 2 students in this study were taking

the second English for Academic Purposes course when they participated in the

survey, while Year 1 students just started taking their first English for Academic

Purposes course. This implied that Year 2 students had more exposure to academic

English than Year 1 students. The finding was consistent with Melton (1990) and

Reid (1987) that the longer the students had studied English, the higher the preference

means for auditory. Reid (1987) suggests that students might have more experiences

with the language, and thus they become more comfortable with auditory learning.

Another explanation provided by Reid is students become more auditory when they

have adjusted to the English-medium academic classrooms.

The finding of this study also confirmed Zhang and Evans’ (2013) research that

students with more opportunities to learn a foreign language tended to have stronger

preference in most categories of learning styles. They explain that with more exposure

to learning a foreign language, learners tend to adapt their learning styles to meet the

  209
increased demands of language learning. This might suggest that students’ learning

styles are changing and developing as learners go through the learning process.

We should notice that students had more exposure to other academic activities as

well, not only English learning. For example, the Year 1 students in this study had

studied at the tertiary level for a semester only, while the Year 2 students had been

studying at the college for three semesters. Many Year 2 students found that they had

to develop more learning styles in order to adapt to the academic life at tertiary level,

which might be different from what they experienced in secondary school. One

example is that the assessments at college required students to have analytical ability

in order to further develop the knowledge, while the assessments in secondary school

might just require students to memorize and understand the basic knowledge. At the

same time, students had more exposure to academic English as both colleges used

English as a medium of instruction in all courses, except the Chinese language

courses. To adapt to the new academic life, students might start to realize the

importance of developing different learning styles, especially when learning academic

English, therefore, Year 2 students might have higher preference in most categories of

learning styles.

5.3.3 Type of study programmes

In this study, both Associate Degree and Higher Diploma programmes students

were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey. It was found that there were

significant differences between the two programmes for kinaesthetic, independent,

  210
and teacher-modeling learning styles. Associate Degree students had greater

preference for kinaesthetic and independent learning styles, whereas Higher Diploma

students preferred teacher-modeling learning styles significantly more than Associate

Degree students.

Both Associate Degree and Higher Diploma programmes aim at equipping

students with generic skills, knowledge in specialized disciplines and practical

vocational skills, in order to prepare them for further studies at university or pursue

career in professions successfully. Associate Degree programmes put more emphasis

on general education while Higher Diploma programmes are more vocation-oriented.

There is no previous research comparing Associate Degree and Higher Diploma

students’ learning style preferences. The main reason is Hong Kong is the one of the

few places in the world which offers both Associate Degree and Higher Diploma

programmes. In addition, the Associate Degree programmes in Hong Kong have been

established for less than 15 years. Very little research has been done on English

language learning of community college students in Hong Kong. Hence, no previous

literature can be found to compare the findings of this study.

Higher diploma students, who focused more on vocational education, preferred

teacher-modeling more than Associate Degree students, might be attributed to the

courses they studied focus more on practical skills. As many practical skills might

be difficult for students to understand or cannot be found on textbooks, the lecturers

usually explain the practical skills explicitly by giving examples or real demonstration

so that students can follow the examples or demonstration easily in real-life situations.

  211
For example, the Higher Diploma in Translation and Interpretation programme

focuses mainly on practical knowledge and hands-on training in translation and

interpretation in different fields, such as financial translation and legal translation.

Teachers usually show them a range of examples with detailed analysis on how to

translate a text accurately. Not unlike other vocational based courses, the Higher

Diploma students might expect their EAP teachers to show them how to use the

language by giving examples. This might imply that the nature of the programme they

attended might affect students’ learning style preferences.

Interestingly, Associate Degree students preferred kinaesthetic learning style

significantly more than Higher Diploma students. Compared with Associate Degree

students, Higher Diploma students had more opportunities to have kinaesthetic

learning in other courses as the Higher Diploma programmes focused more on

practical skills and students had more opportunities to actively participate in

classroom physical activities which involved a combination of stimuli, such as field

trips and role-playing. On the other hand, the courses offered by the Associate Degree

programmes had less learning activities which required students to move around in or

outside classroom. The reason for the high preference on kinaesthetic learning cannot

be identified.

5.3.4 Study fields

This study was consistent with previous research (Kolb, 1981; Melton, 1990;

Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 1999) that significant

  212
differences between different disciplines could be found for several learning styles:

visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, individual, independent, and analytic learning.

Results indicated that Dental Hygiene major students had the lowest means for

all learning style preferences, and Life Sciences students had the highest means for all

learning style preferences, except individual learning. There was no previous research

which compared Dental Hygiene major students with other disciplines. The mean

difference between Dental Hygiene and Life Sciences students were pronounced. This

is a curious discrepancy given that Dental Hygiene students would be expected to

have considerably more human interactions than their Life Sciences counterparts.

However, it was found that previous research (Melton, 1990; Peacock, 2001;

Reid, 1987) on other disciplines’ learning styles did not match well with the present

study. For example, science students had stronger preference for group styles and

Engineering and Computer Science students were more tactile than Humanities

students (Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987). In addition, Language and Humanities majors

had stronger preference to kinaesthetic learning than Science/Medicine and Business

students (Melton, 1990).

There are several possible reasons for the differences. Melton (1990) states that

the students in her study were assigned to their programme according to their public

examination results or personal connections, and students could not select their

interested majors based on their preference. In her study, only one significant

difference could be found and she described that finding as “inexplicable” (p. 41).

However, the students in this study chose their majors according to their preference,

  213
though their academic results were also an important admission criterion. Another

possible reason is students from the same disciplines, but learning in different

countries, might have different ways of learning. For example, Reid’s (1987) study

mainly focuses on ESL students studying in U.S. The Business students’ ways of

learning in US might be different from the Business students in Hong Kong. Other

possible reasons might be attributed to a variety of factors, including sample size,

programme types, and prior academic experiences.

The interview findings may provide further explanations on the relationship

between study fields and learning styles. It was found that students developed their

learning styles when they studied other subjects. When they learnt EAP, their English

language learning styles were then eventually influenced by the learning styles they

had in other subject areas. In short, students’ learning styles in EAP were closely

related to the subjects they were taking. For example, the student interviewees said

they developed analytical learning styles when they learnt Science and they therefore

had a high preference on analytic learning when they learnt EAP. Many students

tended to develop certain learning style preferences in EAP when they found that

those learning styles could successfully help them meet the academic requirements of

other subjects. The interview findings may suggest that students’ learning styles in

EAP are closely related to their study fields.

5.3.5 Educational background

  214
Type of secondary school attended

This research study compared the learning style preferences of students from

different educational background. Students who graduated from English-medium

secondary schools had higher mean values of most of the learning style preferences,

except dependent learning, than those from Chinese-medium secondary schools.

Additionally, students who had Form 6 qualification had the lowest mean values for

all learning styles, except group learning, when compared with students who had

other qualifications. There is no previous research which compared the learning

styles of students from the educational background that the researcher chose. The

reason might be the learning style research studies conducted in Hong Kong mainly

focused on university students who had high English proficiency and most of the

university students in Hong Kong graduated from English-medium secondary schools.

The research participants of this study were all sub-degree students who had lower

English proficiency than the university students. Moreover, the 3-3-4 education

system was newly implemented and there is a lack of research which compares

students who studied the new curriculum with those who studied the old system.

Students who studied English-medium secondary school had higher mean values

of learning styles in general might be attributed to the fact that they all studied in a

learning environment in which required them to use English in both academic and

non-academic contexts. Students might have more opportunities to be exposed to

different teaching styles in English language contexts and develop more English

language learning styles accordingly than those who graduated from Chinese-medium

  215
secondary schools. Reid’s (1987) studies on ESL students’ learning styles found that

non-native speakers who had lived and studied in the U.S. for a longer period of time

tended to have closer preference means of native speakers of English. She concludes

that students might adapt their learning styles in order to meet the demands of the

educational system. This study might be able to confirm Reid’s finding that students

tend to adapt their learning styles or try to further develop more learning styles in

order to meet the demands of the education system which requires them to use

English in all learning contexts.

Those who completed secondary studies in English-medium schools had lower

preference to dependent learning than those who were from Chinese-medium schools.

The possible reason is most of the students from Chinese-medium school had lower

English language proficiency than English-medium schools students and students

needed more support from teachers than English-medium secondary school students.

They, therefore, might rely on their teachers’ support more than English-medium

secondary school graduates.

The interview data of this study showed that students’ learning styles might vary

under different types of schoolings. The student interviewees compared their learning

experience in different schoolings and found that their learning styles changed when

they transferred to another school which adopted different teaching approaches. For

example, a student in this study compared the learning approach in mainstream local

schools and international schools. He found that international schools used more

kinaesthetic, tactile and analytic learning approaches in English language learning

  216
than in mainstream local schools. Another student said the English-medium secondary

schools were less “spoon-fed” and encouraged more independent learning in English

language learning than Chinese-medium secondary schools. This might suggest that

even though students are from the same country and have the same culture could still

have different learning styles due to the complex educational system of a society.

Style researchers should have a good understanding of the educational systems,

instead of focusing on the culture of learners only.

The research findings of this study indicate that the type of schooling learners

had might influence their development of learning styles. This study originally

included students who received secondary school education from other types of

schooling besides local secondary schools in Hong Kong. However, due to the low

number of research participants graduating from other types of secondary schools, the

researcher did not compare the mean values of learning styles with local secondary

school graduates. This study therefore, could not conclude how different types of

schoolings affect students learning styles. Additional research should focus on the

relationship between different types of schoolings and students’ learning style

preferences.

Qualifications on entry

There is no previous research which compares the English language learning

styles of tertiary students with different educational qualifications on entry. The

reason is the 3-3-4 academic structure (six-year secondary education) was newly

  217
implemented when this study was conducted and the old 7-year secondary school

curriculum was still practising. All tertiary institutions, including universities and

community colleges, at that time admitted both the candidates of the HKALE (the

new educational system) and HKDSE (the old educational system). The double

cohorts enabled the researcher to compare students at different entry levels.

Additionally, the community colleges in Hong Kong accept students from different

educational background, which includes local and international students who have

completed secondary education, or Foundation Diploma / Pre-associate degree

programmes. Therefore, this study could compare students’ learning styles based on

their qualifications on entry to the Associate Degree or Higher Diploma programmes.

The results indicated that those who had Form 6 qualification had the lowest

mean values for all learning style preferences, except group learning. It was also

found that Foundation Diploma / Pre-associate degree graduates preferred tactile and

group learning significantly more than Form 6 graduates. It is possible that the

Foundation Diploma / Pre-associate degree graduates had experienced tertiary studies,

which put much emphasis on group work and hands-on experiences in classes and

assessments, earlier than Form 6 graduates. Many secondary school graduates might

not have had so many opportunities for group learning as they focused more on

individual work in both school assessments and public examinations. On the other

hand, most of the tertiary institutions include copious opportunities for group work in

class work and assessments. Those who had completed Foundation Diploma /

Pre-associate degree students should have more experiences in group learning more

  218
than secondary school fresh graduates. In addition, all community colleges which

offer Foundation Diploma / Pre-associate degree programmes aim at preparing

students well for their career development and further studies, and so they encourage

experiential learning and provide lots of practical hands-on experiences. Most of the

courses promote experiential learning by requiring students to tackle real-life

challenges by using the knowledge they have acquired in class in order to enable them

to put theories into practice. During the learning process, students are given plenty of

time to discuss, discover and create knowledge with other students. For instance, to

help students understand how to conduct research, students may be asked to design

their own questionnaires, go to different places in Hong Kong to interview tourists

and present their findings to the class as parts of their assessments. Continuous

assessments are commonly conducted to determine students’ abilities. On the other

hand, most of the secondary schools focus much on students’ public examination

achievements, many senior secondary school students spend most of the time on

examination drilling practises.

Although the new academic structure encourages teachers to provide a wide

variety of activities for students to learn English such as lyrics writing and

role-playing, most of the teachers still focus on examination skills as the final public

examination is the only criterion which can determine whether the students can gain

admission to universities. Many secondary school students lack the opportunities to

experience and use English in real life situations. As secondary school graduates did

not have much experience in tactile and group learning, students might not be able to

  219
develop those language learning styles.

The researcher interviewed students who studied the HKALE curriculum (the

old curriculum) and the HKDSE curriculum (the new curriculum). The student

interviewees compared the assessment components and the content of the syllabi and

concluded that the whole curriculum highly related to their learning styles. The

interview findings could further explain and confirm the quantitative findings of this

study. Those who studied under the HKALE commented that the English syllabus

focused much on individual written work. Students who studied under the HKDSE

curriculum said the new curriculum required them to study a wide range of electives

such as language arts electives and non-language arts electives, which encouraged

them to develop different learning styles. They suggested that the variety of learning

activities is related to their development of learning styles. Compared with the new

curriculum, the old one might limit their development of learning styles due to the

lack of variety of learning activities and syllabus contents. This might conclude that

curriculum planners should have a good awareness on how the assessment methods

and the syllabus content affect the development of learning styles. Though it seems

that students favoured more the present curriculum due to the wider variety of

learning activities and syllabus contents, it should be noted that they also commented

that the new curriculum still put much emphasis on individual paper-work

assessments. Curriculum planners in Hong Kong should also review the syllabi and

maximize the opportunities for students to further develop their learning styles.

This study might conclude that students’ learning experience under different

  220
educational systems can affect their development of learning styles. Studying under

an education system which emphasizes group learning and tactile learning can help

students develop those learning styles, and examination system can encourage

students to develop certain styles as students may adapt their learning styles in order

to achieve academic success.

5.3.6 English language proficiency

Much of the recent literature has not examined the relationship between students’

language proficiency and learning styles, but most of the language learning literature

focused much on the relationship between language proficiency and language

learning strategies. The literature review chapter has explained the differences

between language strategies and learning styles. Research on language learning

strategies usually suggested that students who had higher language proficiency tended

to use the high efficacy language learning strategies. Most of the studies did not

statistically investigate the correlation between English language proficiency and

language learning styles. The qualitative findings of this study indicated that students

who had high language proficiency had certain learning styles. The stronger students

believed advanced language learners should be able to learn independently. They

found that when they attained certain language level, they should be able to discover

the language by themselves. The process of discovering language by themselves

enabled them to deepen their knowledge and enhance language learning, especially

when they learnt EAP, which is more advanced than General English. They also

  221
found that group learning might not be effective with students who had lower

language proficiency than them. The lower language proficiency students preferred

group learning and dependent learning as they were not confident to learn by their

own. They also felt more comfortable to work with students who had higher language

proficiency.

The findings seem to be consistent with Peacock’s (2001) findings that less

proficient learners prefer group learning significantly. In addition, Wong and Nunan’s

(2011) study also indicates that the more and less effective language learners differ

significantly. This research could further confirm their study that more effective

learners tend to prefer independent learning in order to have more control of their own

learning, when compared to less effective language learners. However, it should be

noted that successful language learners might have different learning styles in

different learning stages. The learning styles they may have now might not be

necessary to be related to their learning success. It is possible that students developed

those learning styles when they became advanced learners, but had other learning

styles at the early stage of learning. The interview data could only conclude that

students who had different language levels might have different preferences towards

learning styles.

5.3.7 Educational context and nature of learning tasks (Assessments vs.

non-assessments)

There are limited research studies investigating the influence of educational

  222
context on students’ learning styles as it is difficult to compare the development of

learning styles under different educational contexts. Littlewood (2000, p. 32) found

that his Chinese international students who took courses in the UK and USA had

difficulties adapting to the “class discussion style” due to their expectations to

classroom environment. Based on Littlewood’s observation and previous literature, he

carried out a survey about students’ beliefs towards teachers’ roles in class.

Interestingly, the results shows that Hong Kong students’ actual classroom behaviour

(being passive and obedient) did not reflect the roles they would actually like to adopt

in class. He concludes that educational contexts students is one of the possible factors

influencing students’ learning styles and therefore suggests researchers to explore

further how educational contexts, besides cultural factors, could influence students’

learning styles. Wong (2004) examines whether Asian students’ learning styles are

culturally based or education contextual based. His study reveals that students are

highly adaptive for learning. The educational contexts that they are exposed to could

influence their learning styles. This study could further fill the gaps in learning style

research by exploring students’ beliefs towards the influence of educational system on

their learning styles. The interview findings of this study were consistent with Wong

(2004) and Littlewood’s (2000) arguments that educational contexts could greatly

affect students’ learning styles.

This study revealed that students’ learning style preferences were based on the

nature of educational system. In order to achieve academic success, many students

tried to fit in the educational system by developing certain learning styles. In short,

  223
students might prefer other learning styles if they were exposed to other educational

contexts. The interviews revealed that the examination system, curricula and syllabi

might influence students’ learning styles.

Students’ perception towards assessments

The student participants pointed out that the exam-oriented educational system

significantly influenced their learning styles. Most of the student in the study aimed at

entering university after graduation as they believed that graduating from university

could bring them a brighter future. Biggs (1992) explains that Hong Kong students

are highly achievement-oriented might be related to the fierce competition for the

limited tertiary places. The high-stakes testing dominates Hong Kong students’

education life (Romanowski, 2006). Public examinations have become the motivation

for learning and the emphasis of examinations has become a characteristic of the

Hong Kong education system (Lee, 1996a). The washback, which refers to the

influence of testing on teaching and learning in applied linguistics (Alderson & Wall,

1993), is always greatly emphasized and always investigated in the field of both

general education and language education. Several research studies indicate students’

ways of learning are based on the types of assessments. For instance, Anderson, Muir,

Bateson, Blackmore and Rogers (1990) carried out a survey examining the effects of

narrowing down to the topics the tests that were most likely to include, and found that

students tended to adopt a memorization approach, instead of critical thinking.

The findings of the present study seemed to confirm those research studies that

  224
students tended to learn according to the assessment formats. In Hong Kong

secondary schools, students’ academic performance is mainly determined by the

high-stakes “one-off” public examinations, though a very small percentage was based

on school-based continuous assessments. In community colleges, students’ grades are

comprised of both continuous assessment and end-of-term examination performance.

Different from the secondary school public examinations which were all organized by

the government, assessment formats and questions in community colleges were all

designed by the teachers who taught the courses. In order to achieve higher grades for

admission to universities, many students tried to satisfy their teachers’ requirements

by relying much on teachers’ instructions and explanations. They also expected their

teachers to give them clear guidelines on every task. For example, a student in the

interview said he expected his teachers to give them lots of exam tips and even

feedback for his draft assignments before submission. Another student participant said

he was “forced” to become a dependent learner under the exam-oriented and

achievement-oriented system. The education system which emphasizes students’

grades might influence their ways of learning. The student who said he was “forced”

to be dependent showed that he might prefer dependent learning style under the Hong

Kong education system, but in fact he might prefer another learning style if he could

choose to study under another education system.

The students in this study were required to report their learning style preferences

when they studied EAP through questionnaire surveys. The items, “independent

learning style” and “dependent learning styles”, in the questionnaire seemed to be

  225
contradictory in nature. The results, however, showed that the difference between the

mean values of both items was very small (mean values of independent learning style:

17.72 and dependent learning style: 17.23). The interview findings could explain the

“contradictory results” that students might prefer dependent learning styles in certain

learning situations, but at the same time, they preferred independent learning styles in

other learning contexts. The findings also suggested that students’ learning style

preferences might change in different educational contexts. It would be interesting to

compare students’ learning style preferences under different educational contexts. For

instance, do students change their learning style preferences if examination grades are

not the main criteria of assessing students’ academic competence? Would students

have more flexibility to develop more learning styles if teachers assess students’

learning outcomes by using pass/fail assessments, which are common in postgraduate

education? Do students who aim at studying for assessments (extrinsic motivation)

differ from those who study for learning (intrinsic motivation)? Nonetheless, there is a

lack of learning style research which could fully answer those questions as the

assessment system in Hong Kong still aims at selecting the most competent students

(those who performed satisfactory in examinations) for further education. It is

recommended that future research could explore the relationship between assessment

system and learning style preferences. In order to explore the relationship between

assessment and learning styles, the researcher furthered the discussion of assessments

by interviewing them their beliefs towards group activities.

  226
Group activities and assessments

Hong Kong Chinese learners are characterised as high on collectivism, but low

on individualism, have a good sense of belonging to social groups and prefer working

together in groups, under the Chinese Confucian philosophical system (Hofstede &

Bond, 1984; Hofstede, 1980; Trompanaars, 1993). On the other hand, it has been

argued that the Chinese Confucius also emphasized individuality in learning and

aimed at cultivating people to be independent and reflective learners (Kennedy, 2002;

Lee, 1996). In addition, some studies show that the ways learners working together

might be different from the Western’s views towards group or cooperative learning.

They conclude that Chinese ESL/EFL learners might not prefer the ad hoc

small-group work in classroom, but prefer to form study groups outside classroom

which are constant for a rather long period of time. The students in this study,

however, viewed group work in another way – from the assessment perspective.

The student interviewees did not mention whether the Chinese culture was

related to their preference towards individualism or collectivism or not, but explained

their preference was based on the nature of the tasks – will the group work be

assessed formally? Most of the high achievers in the interviews said they preferred

individual work, while the low achievers preferred group work for assessments.

Surprisingly, both groups did not have strong opposition to group work activities for

classwork. The interesting findings show that students’ learning style preference

might possibly be related to the nature of tasks and level of students. Many high

achievers worried that the weak or lazy group members might lower their grades. In

  227
contrast, the low achievers believed other group members could help them get a better

grade.

Time management was a concern that students had. Most of the students found

that after-class groupwork might require them to spend extra time on collaboration.

Due to the tight learning schedule and different class timetable of group members,

many students did not prefer to work in groups outside class. They found that working

individually could save the time to contact other group members, meet with them, and

ensure the quality of work. However, they could still see the advantages of group

learning and believed they could learn from others through groupwork. They,

therefore, preferred non-assessed group work which they did not have to spend too

much outside class rather than outside-class group assessments. Referring to the

questionnaire survey, the two items, “group learning styles” and “individual learning

styles” might look contradictory. Nevertheless, the mean values of both items were

quite close (group learning style: 16.84, and individual learning style: 16.60). Similar

to independent and dependent learning styles, students might prefer group learning

style and individual learning style in different tasks and under different situations.

Many researchers used the cultural factors to explain Chinese students’ preference to

individual and group learning, but neglect the importance of students’ study goals, the

nature of tasks, and the possible educational challenges that students are facing. More

research can be done in this area in order to examine what factors might influence

students’ preference towards group learning and individual learning.

  228
Syllabi and curriculum

All of the student participants in this study commented that the spoon-fed

curriculum in Hong Kong emphasized the memorization of knowledge, instead of

discovery learning, and the objective of the curriculum was to help students overcome

the next assessment hurdle at different stages. The interview findings were consistent

with Tang and Biggs (1996) and Wong’s (2004) discussion on learning and teaching

styles in Asian classrooms, where students were required to memorize knowledge.

Tang and Biggs (1996) found that students in Hong Kong were trained to meet

examination requirements. The student participants pointed out that the tight learning

schedule and packed syllabi both in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education

curriculum and community college curriculum caused them unable to spend extra

time on discovering knowledge. They preferred their teachers give them the necessary

learning materials for public examinations. In addition, the examination questions

usually required candidates to recite knowledge, instead of asking them to investigate

and solve problems. The students therefore agreed that their dependent and

teacher-modeling learning styles might be developed from the spoon-fed education

system which required them to memorize knowledge in limited time.

Tang and Biggs (1996) found that students still could maintain a deep learning

orientation in a “highly surface-oriented assessment” (p. 179) when they were

developing test-taking strategies due to their cultural dispositions. They explained

students in Hong Kong could react to the learning environment specifically and

contextually. This might go towards explaining why students had a high preference

  229
for analytic learning (mean value: 17.53), though they preferred both dependent and

teacher-modeling learning styles. Despite the fact that the student interviewees did not

relate analytic learning to the curriculum, their preference to analytic learning might

be derived from the learning process during examination preparation. In the process

of examination preparation, students might rely much on teachers’ explanations and

memorization of knowledge at the beginning stage, and then will eventually move on

to develop deep-oriented learning through analytical thinking.

This study, unfortunately, was not specifically planned to explain students’

learning styles in different learning stages, especially when they prepared for

examinations. If it had, the findings might conclude that students’ learning styles were

developed from the design of curriculum. The curriculum in Hong Kong is always

characterized as tight and packed. Even though teachers plan lots of high-order

learning activities to stimulate students’ thinking ability, they might sometimes lack

the time to implement them in class as they have to cover the syllabus so as to prepare

students well for examinations. Students also might not prefer those high-order

learning activities as they have to spend much time on finding information than

memorizing knowledge. In most community colleges, curriculum planners usually

include continuous assessments such as projects and laboratory experiments, in order

to help students develop different types of research skills. However, before receiving

tertiary education, students still have to go through the process of memorizing

knowledge to meet the public examination requirements for further studies. Although

previous research studies show that students could develop high-order thinking

  230
through the process of examination preparation, they might still have fewer

opportunities to experience deep learning. More importantly, some weak students

might get used to the learning styles they developed in secondary school education,

and had difficulty adapting to the new learning environment which requires them to

employ deep-related strategies. Most of the student interviewees were Year 1 students

and they were still adapting to the new learning environment and thus, they did not

mention much whether there were any differences in learning styles when compared

with secondary and tertiary education.

Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that the education system

students are having and had might influence their learning styles. This study found

that Hong Kong students were adaptive in different learning contexts. Their learning

styles were mainly based on the learning tasks and goals of education. Further

research could be done on how students respond to different educational contexts,

such as different educational systems.

5.3.8 Cultural beliefs and values

The interview showed that students’ cultural beliefs and values were closely

related to their learning styles. The findings were in line with several scholars’ studies

(De Vita, 2001; Hofstede, 1986; Jordan, 1997; Kennedy, 2002; Littrell, 2007; Oxford

& Anderson, 1995; Rossi-Le, 1989; Stebbins, 1995). Nelson (1995) points out that

learners were not born to have certain learning styles such as visual and kinaesthetic,

they learnt how to learn through family and the society. Those researchers warned

  231
that misunderstanding students’ cultural learning styles may cause academic failure.

The interview findings showed that students’ cultural beliefs towards effective

learning and role of teacher might contribute to their development of learning styles.

Role of teachers

Most of the student participants pointed out that the Chinese Confucius culture

assumes teachers as the most authoritative source of knowledge. In the Chinese

culture, students are expected to obey the teachers and should avoid challenging their

wisdom and knowledge. They therefore had a high preference to teacher-modeling

style. The findings were consistent with the previous learning styles studies (Chan,

1999; Kennedy, 2002; Murphy, 1987; Pratt, Kelly, & Wong, 1999; Tweed & Lehman,

2002), regarding to Hong Kong and Chinese students’ cultural beliefs. Some

researchers (Ho & Crookall, 1995; Tsui, 1996) even believe that this might cause

obstacles to students’ learning in the long term. This cultural belief can be reflected in

the ancient Chinese educational philosophy literature. According to the Analects of

Confucius / Lunyu (論語), a famous Confucian classic in Ancient Chinese, “study”

means finding a good teacher and imitating their words and deeds (Rieger, 2006). A

good teacher should have good moral values and be familiar with academic ancient

work. Teachers also have the responsibility to be a good role model academically and

morally. Moreover, obeying and respecting teachers and parents are the basic moral

values people should have. In addition, the Confucian code of conduct, Wu Lun (五

倫), which was also called the Five Constants or Five Cardinal Hierarchical

  232
Relationships, requires that one should always obey and respect the higher hierarchy.

The relationships include: between the government and citizens, between parents and

offspring, between husband and wife, between older and younger siblings and friends

(父子有親，夫婦有別，君臣有義，長幼有序，朋友有信。). Despite the fact that

many people believe Hong Kong people’s cultural and national identity is declining

and are unaware of the Confucian influence on education, many Confucius beliefs are

still widely accepted in the Hong Kong society.

Some non-Chinese educationalists characterized Hong Kong Chinese as quiet

and passive students (Bradley & Bradley, 1984; Hu, 2002; Samuelowicz, 1987) and

are not willing to express ideas or ask questions in class. Some might even

misunderstand that the Chinese students are not willing to learn and think (See

Chapter 2). The misunderstanding can sometimes adversely affect teacher-student

relationship and the classroom learning environment. The findings of this study can

explain why they may not be as active as Western students in class and how important

the role of teachers is among Chinese students. In language learning classroom, the

Confucian characteristics may be obstacles for students as they believe sitting and

listening to their teachers quietly are a kind of respect to their teachers. They may not

want to step out from their comfort zone in order to have more interaction with their

teachers in class. Teachers should build an affective classroom environment and help

them escape from the maze of cultural expectations. In addition, teachers should

develop an awareness of cultural influences in order to help students learn effectively.

  233
Ways of acquiring knowledge

The interview findings showed that students had to go through different stages

when acquiring knowledge. Some Western teachers found that students in Hong Kong

were not analytical learners as they focused much on memorization. The student

participants, however, emphasized the importance of analytical learning in EAP class

and explained the relationship between analytical learning and memorization of

knowledge in English language learning.

Many research studies (Biggs, 1996; Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Carson, 1992;

Connor, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Cross & Hitchcock, 2007) investigating

Chinese learners’ ways of acquiring knowledge found that memorization of

knowledge or rote learning played a significant role in the process of learning and that

memorization can help deepen the acquisition of knowledge. Biggs (1996)

distinguishes rote learning between repetitive learning. He explains that Chinese

learners prefer repetitive learning, that is, they memorize in order to further enhance

their understanding and lead to higher cognitive outcomes, while rote learning refers

to mechanical memorizing without understanding. Marton, Dall’Alba and Tse (1996)

explore the relationship between memorization and understanding among Chinese

learners and also discovered that students developed understanding though

memorization and repeating. The results of this study seem to be consistent with those

research studies which suggest Chinese students tend to memorize knowledge for

deep learning.

Many students pointed out that the traditional method of learning –

  234
memorization was deeply rooted in their early learning experiences. In language

learning classrooms, besides grammar drilling practices, learners were required to

memorize vocabulary, grammatical patterns, and even sentence structures. They

believed this type of learning was essential at the early stage of language acquisition,

when they were not familiar with the language and had limited vocabulary knowledge.

This way of learning was also commonly applied in learning their mother tongue, the

Chinese language. The results matched with Rao and Sachs’ (1999) findings that

Hong Kong students believed memorization of knowledge is one of the higher-order

metacognitive skills and Lee’s (1996b) conclusion that memorization is as important

as understanding, reflecting and questioning in the Chinese learning culture.

The relationship between understanding, memorizing, reflecting and questioning

was in fact reflected in the Chinese Ancient Confucian classics. The Confucian classic

The Great Learning (大學) emphasizes the process of investigating knowledge

(gewu 格物), and many Chinese philosophers explain that learners have to understand

and memorize the basic principals before introspection. In addition, a Chinese ancient

Confucianist Zhu Xi (朱熹) also advocates learning is a gradual sequence in which

consists of intensive reading of texts and reflective thinking. The interview findings

fully reflected what Hong Kong learners’ beliefs towards different stages of learning.

Although most of the literature which studies Chinese students’ way of learning was

outside the field of language learning, it seems it can explain how Hong Kong EAP

learners learnt. Most of the student participants agreed that memorization is important

at the early stage in English language learning, but they also pointed out that

  235
understanding, thinking and investigating are more important at the higher level of

English language learning, especially when they learnt EAP. For example, to

understand an academic journal article, they should acquire the basic vocabulary

knowledge by memorizing the meaning of words before guessing the meaning of the

text and reflecting on it. They generally believed that memorization of basic

knowledge was essential for proceeding to advanced learning. Their belief was

consistent with the Chinese traditional belief of learning – memorizing knowledge

(e.g. vocabulary and grammatical usage) at the early stage, and when they have a deep

understanding of a subject, they can proceed to a more advanced stage, that is

analyzing and investigating knowledge by using the basic knowledge they acquired.

In Western countries memorization of knowledge was equated with rote learning

(without understanding). This study could provide evidence to educationalists that

they should be aware of cultural differences and understand how a culture affects

students’ learning style. The findings could also explain several studies’ findings

(Flynn, 1991; Mullis et al, 2004; OECD, 2007; Sue & Okazaki, 1990) that Chinese

learners performed better than their Western counterparts even though they

memorized knowledge.

Face

The interviewees mentioned an important Chinese concept – face, which refers to

personal esteem and prestige in the traditional Chinese society. Previous educational

literature (Bond, 1996; Kennedy, 2002; Nelson, 1995; Tsui, 1996) on Chinese

  236
learners usually related the concept of face with their learning. This research finding

of this study confirmed the previous studies that conclude that students avoid making

mistakes in front of others by keeping silent in class, but seemed to be inconsistent

with the previous studies which argue that Chinese students favoured group learning

due to the Chinese culture. Some students said they disfavoured group learning was

because they had to avoid making mistakes in front of others. They therefore did not

have a strong preference to group learning in class. The interview findings seem to be

in contrast with the quantitative data of this study that some students still favoured

group learning sometimes. The student interviewees discussed the concept of face

mainly in classroom context, but not outside classroom. The major difference between

in-class learning and outside class learning is that students may find making mistakes

in front of the students who they know well would be less embarrassing than making

mistakes in front of the whole class. Although in the interview they said they did not

prefer group learning in classroom, it does not mean that they do not prefer group

learning in all learning contexts. The student interviewees did not mention much

about the relationship between the concept of face and learning styles, but can

conclude that the concept of face is related to students’ learning styles in different

educational contexts.

Self-oriented personality

The student interviewees suggested that Chinese people have a strong

self-oriented personality. Western researchers defined “self-oriented” or

  237
“individual-oriented” as personal, individual, independent, and private, and involved

personal needs, rights, competitions and strivings   (Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Yang,

2004). Several studies (Lu & Yang, 2006; Lu, 2008) on Chinese learners reveal that

both collectivism and individualism co-exist in the modern Chinese society due to the

great influence of the Western culture. However, those research studies only use

statistical data to explain the existence of individualism, but do not give further

qualitative data on how Chinese people view individualism. The Hong Kong Chinese

students in this study commented that the fierce competitions among students and the

stressful environment in Hong Kong made them have a strong feeling towards

individualism. They believed that their classmates are potential competitors,

especially in community college. Due to the great competition in school learning, they

might avoid to share their resources or academic achievements with other students

sometimes. In addition, living in the stressful and fast-paced environment in Hong

Kong could cause them develop self-oriented personality. They found that they had

strong preference towards individual learning style might be because of the general

competitive environment in Hong Kong.

5.3.9 Teaching styles of students' former English teachers

In this study, the researcher could not investigate the student participants’

English teachers’ teaching styles and identify the correlation between students’

learning styles and teachers’ teaching styles statistically. However, many interviewees

commented that their former English teachers’ teaching styles might be directly

  238
related to their learning styles. Some literature (Cotazzi, 1990; Ehrman, 1996; Felder,

1995; Jones, 1997; Littlewood, Liu & Yu, 1996; Oxford, Hollaway & Horton-Murillo,

1992; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Stebbins, 1995; Tuan, 2011) suggested teachers to

match their teaching styles with students’ learning styles in order to provide students

with an affective learning environment and enhance their learning. On the other hand,

some researchers (Felder, 1995; Kolb, 1984; Oxford & Lavine, 1992) found that the

“matching theory” might not be feasible as those empirical research studies may not

be clearly defined. A number of researchers (Kinsella, 1995; Li & Qin, 2006; Littrell,

2006; Melton, 1990; Oxford & Hollaway, 1992; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987; Sprenger,

2003; Tuan, 2011; Willing, 1988; Zhou, 2011) pointed out that adopting a multi-style

approach can accommodate learners’ needs and help extend students’ learning styles.

Those research studies usually encouraged teachers to adapt their teaching styles in

order to suit students’ needs (match or intentionally mismatch with students’ learning

styles).

There is limited research showing that students adapt or develop their learning

styles which may eventually match with teachers’ teaching styles. Yu’s (2012)

longitudinal study investigating the relationship between teaching styles and learning

styles finds that teachers’ teaching styles and learning styles influence the

instructional methods and the design of learning activities. The learning tasks usually

require learners to employ certain learning styles. Students then gradually change

their learning styles in order to adapt to the learning environment. This study can

further confirm Yu’s study that students eventually match their learning styles with

  239
teaching styles. Most of the previous literature assumes that teachers’ teaching styles

should be more flexible than students’ learning styles and teachers should adapt their

teaching styles by matching or mismatching students’ learning styles. The findings of

this study may suggest that students’ learning styles have a high flexibility and can be

changed and influenced by teaching styles, besides demographic factors such as

students’ gender and culture. It leads to the question of whether it is necessary to

match or mismatch learning styles with teaching styles deliberately in order to

enhance language learning. In addition, it may be interesting to find out to what extent

learning styles can be changed and influenced by teaching styles. For example, if

there is a significant difference between learning styles and teaching styles, can the

learning styles be eventually be matched with teaching styles in a period of time? This

study, unfortunately, cannot measure statistically to what extent the difference

between learning styles and teaching styles is in order to have an unintentional match

between them in classroom learning. The findings may be useful for style researchers

to investigate the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles, and

understand how to enhance classroom experiences and maximize academic outcomes.

5.3.10 Summary

This study found that the EAP students in Hong Kong community colleges had

multiple language learning styles. The quantitative and qualitative results of this study

indicated that several factors were significantly related to students’ language learning

styles. Some research studies conclude that certain cultural groups of students may

  240
have certain language learning style preferences. For example, Chinese students

generally favour collectivism and should have a high preference towards group

learning. The results of this study, however, show that the development of learning

styles is complex and flexible. Although this study focused on Hong Kong

community college students’ learning styles only, it can be seen that different students

from the same cultural background and study under the same education system might

have different language learning style preferences.

The research findings seem to be consistent with the previous literature on the

nature of learning styles (Curry, 1953, 1957; Dunn, 1990; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990;

Gagne, 1985; Honey & Mumford, 1984; Kinsella & Sherak, 1998; Kolb & Kolb,

2005; Reichmann & Grasha, 1974; Sternberg, 1994). Learning styles are flexible and

can be influenced by both internal and external factors. The internal factors identified

in the interviews include educational background, cultural beliefs and values, and

English language proficiency of students. The external factors include teaching styles,

educational contexts and nature of learning tasks.

The previous research shows that teachers should adopt a learning-style

approach which should either match or mismatch their teaching styles deliberately in

order to enhance students’ language learning. The results of this study show that

students’ learning styles have a high flexibility that they may eventually match with

teaching styles when students have to meet the academic requirements and complete

the required tasks successfully. The findings are consistent with several previous

studies on the nature of learning styles (Cassidy, 2004; Hadfield, 2006; Holec, 1987;

  241
 Little & Singleton, 1990). In short, even though there is a mismatch between learning

styles and teaching styles, students may unconsciously adjust their learning styles and

match with teachers’ teaching styles. After a period of time, students may develop

learning styles which are similar to their teachers’ teaching styles. Figure 5.1 gives a

summary of the quantitative and qualitative findings of the research regarding to

students’ learning styles.

Figure 5.1. Different Factors Influencing EAP Students’ Learning Style Preferences

English   Educational  Contexts  

Language   and  Nature  of  Learning  

Cultural  Beliefs  and  
Proficiency   Tasks  
Values  

English  Language  Learning  

Style  Preferences     Changing  
Educational  
Examples:  Visual,  Auditory,  
Background  of  
Kinaesthetic,  Tactile,  Group,  Individual,  
students   New  Language  
Independent,  Dependent,  Analytic,   Learning  Style  
Teacher-­‐modeling   Preferences  

Match  
Mismatch  

English  Language  Teaching  Styles  

5.4 English language teaching styles of Hong Kong community college teachers

in EAP contexts

  242
 This researcher tried to distribute a teaching style questionnaire which was

similar to students’ questionnaire to EAP teachers. When discussed the questionnaire

items with the teachers, it was found that most of the them had difficulty identifying

their teaching styles through the questionnaire. Teaching style is instructor’s natural,

habitual and preferred way of presenting new information and teaching language

skills in classroom. Many teachers reflected that they might have different teaching

styles in different EAP classrooms. For example, a teacher said she might prefer to

use independent teaching style in classes which have higher English language

proficiency, but might have other teaching styles with classes which have lower

English language proficiency. In addition, another teacher said his teaching styles

were based on the learning culture of students and colleges. He might have different

teaching styles in different classrooms. They therefore questioned the reliability and

validity of teaching style questionnaires and argued that they might have different

questionnaire results for different classes.

There is a range of teaching style research studies (for example, Cook, 2008;

Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006; Leung, Lue, & Lee, 2003; Peacock, 2001; Salem,

2001) using questionnaires as the main research instrument and some researchers

have developed some questionnaires for teachers and other researchers to understand

their teaching styles. Those research studies usually concluded that teachers from

different educational background preferred different teaching styles. For example,

Peacock’s (2002) study shows that ethnic Chinese teachers preferred auditory

teaching style, but it was negative for Western teachers. Many teachers also favoured

  243
kinaesthetic and group teaching styles, but strongly disfavoured tactile and individual

styles. However, they rarely compared the same teacher’s teaching styles in different

classrooms. In short, there is a dearth of research that studies whether teachers would

change their teaching styles in different educational contexts. For example, Peacock’s

(2002) study did not investigate whether teachers would have different teaching styles

when they teach in different classrooms or even institutions. They might prefer to use

tactile teaching style for students who need or prefer lots of hands-on experience.

Although the present study could not show the quantitative results of Hong Kong

EAP community college teachers’ teaching styles, the comments from the teacher

participants might be useful for teaching style researchers to reflect on the reliability

and validity of teaching style questionnaires.

This study did not aim at evaluating the validity and reliability of the previous

teaching style research statistically, but could conclude that the previous teaching

style research might not be able to identify teachers’ teaching styles accurately based

on the questionnaire surveys. It could also further confirm Akbarzadeh and

Fatemipour’s (2014) study that teachers could not identify their teaching style

preferences accurately by using questionnaire surveys. They observed that there was a

discrepancy between their actual teaching and their questionnaire responses. However

they did not explain the reason for the discrepancy. The interview results of the study

might be able to explain why they could not respond to the teaching style

questionnaire accurately.

Future style researchers should consider the flexibility of teaching styles and

  244
further evaluate the validity and reliability of questionnaire surveys. After discussing

the issue of research instruments, all research participants agreed that conducting

interviews the most suitable way to explore teachers’ teaching styles more accurately

as interviews are more flexible, which suits the flexible nature of teaching styles. In

addition, it was found that teachers’ teaching styles were complex and could change

in different educational contexts. Teaching style researchers should find other ways

such as using case studies and longitudinal studies, to investigate teaching styles.

Additionally, researchers should further investigate the reliability and validity of

different teaching style research instruments. The researcher, therefore, conducted

several interviews to explore teachers’ teaching styles in order to have a better

understanding of Hong Kong EAP teachers’ teaching styles.

5.5 Factors influencing Hong Kong community college teachers’ language

teaching styles in EAP contexts

The factors reported by the teacher participants could be categorized into internal

and external. Internal factors refer to those that the individual teacher brings with

him/her to the particular teaching situation. These include: teachers’ personal learning

style preferences, and their cultural and educational background. External factors

refer to the characteristics of the particular language learning situation. The possible

factors include: students’ learning style preferences, students’ English language

proficiency, teaching areas and syllabi of EAP courses, and learning and teaching

  245
 culture of the institution. Figure 5.2 summarizes the relationship between teachers’

teaching styles and different factors.

Figure 5.2: Internal and External Factors Influencing EAP Teachers’ Teaching Styles

External  Factors:  
Ÿ Students’ learning style
Internal  Factors:   preferences
Ÿ Teachers’ personal Teaching   Ÿ Students’ English
learning style preferences Styles  of  EAP   language proficiency
Ÿ Teachers’ cultural and Teachers   Ÿ Teaching areas and
educational background syllabi of EAP courses
Ÿ Learning and teaching
culture of the institution

Most of the teaching style literature focuses on the internal factors and

commonly believed that “teachers teach the way they learnt” (Dunn & Dunn, 1979, p.

239). In short, teachers’ learning styles are aligned with their teaching styles. In the

previous section on learning styles preferences, it was found that a learner’s cultural

and educational background might be related to learning styles. That means teachers’

cultural and educational background, and their own learning style preferences are

related to their teaching styles. Therefore, most of the present literature focuses on

different internal factors such as gender, cultural and educational background

influence teachers’ teaching styles. This study, however, found that teachers’ teaching

styles were flexible and could also be influenced by external factors which might vary

in different EAP classrooms. Their teaching styles might change instantly when they

  246
had to switch to another classroom where students had different learning styles and

English language proficiency, and study different language areas and syllabi in

different institutions. Therefore, this study suggests that teachers might have different

sets of teaching style preferences in different classrooms and may switch from on set

to another based on different external factors. It might be difficult to identify exactly

what teaching style preferences teachers have. The following section will explore the

relationship between teaching styles and different factors.

5.5.1 Teachers’ personal learning style preferences

The interview findings of this study revealed that teachers’ personal learning

style preferences developed from previous learning experiences influenced their

beliefs towards teaching. The data supported Dunn and Dunn’s (1979) findings that

“teachers teach the way they learnt” and confirmed several studies (Avery, 1985;

Gregore, 1979; Kasim, 2012; Pajares, 1992; Witkin, 1973) related to teachers’

learning experiences and their teaching styles. They generally believed that their

learning style preferences which led to their academic success and hence would

expect students to develop those learning styles by designing different activities.

Another reason for teachers to develop teaching styles according to their personal

learning styles might be they feel more comfortable to teach with the styles which

they prefer and are familiar with. The styles which they prefer were established by the

time they received education in different levels such as in secondary school and

university. In addition, their learning styles were formed in accordance to their

  247
personal cultural and educational background, which was similar to what have been

discussed in the earlier parts of this chapter.

The teacher interviewees in this study did not explain how they developed their

learning styles in depth as the interview questions focused mainly on their teaching

styles. Therefore, they only explained that their cultural and educational background

contributed to the formation of their learning styles, which in turn became their own

teaching styles. The next part will discuss how teachers’ educational and cultural

background related to their teaching styles.

5.5.2 Teachers’ cultural and educational backgrounds

This study included teacher participants on this study who were raised and

educated in different regions, and countries such as Hong Kong, the mainland China,

Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. Most of the participants had

experience of receiving education in different countries. For example, a participant

received primary and secondary education in Hong Kong, but went to university in

the U.S. It might be difficult to differentiate culture and educational background as

they are related. All participants agreed that the learning cultures vary in different

regions and countries. As a result, they developed their own teaching styles based on

the previous educational experience they had in different places. This study could not

conclude which countries such as the Western or the Asian countries would contribute

to which teaching styles due to the limited number of teacher participants and their

complex cultural and educational background. However, this study could show that

  248
cultural and educational background is closely related to their teaching styles.

The findings of this study were consistent with Peacock (2001) and Ryans (1970)

that teachers from different ethnic and educational background might have different

teaching styles. For example, a Hong Kong Chinese teacher who received education

in Hong Kong and Western countries pointed out that the Western culture may focus

more on critical thinking and expect students to take an active role in class, while the

classroom in the Chinese culture may be more teacher-centred and have less

interaction in class. Being educated under different cultures may influence teachers’

teaching styles. This study, unfortunately, could not find out the Hong Kong Chinese

culture of English language teaching as many research participants did not receive

higher education in Hong Kong, or in Asia. Although some teachers were educated in

Hong Kong, they were usually taught by the Western teachers in higher education, as

most of them majored in English literature or English language education. However,

they could still point out the differences between the teaching styles of the Chinese

culture and the Western culture. They all agreed that cultural and educational

background could definitely influence teachers’ teaching styles. The results can

conclude that understanding where teachers received education could help us

understand what teaching styles they might have. Another important implication that

can be drawn from our findings is that teacher trainers play an essential role in the

development of teachers’ teaching styles and should therefore pay attention to their

own teaching styles.

  249
5.5.3 Students’ learning style preferences

In this research, many teachers found that they taught according to the learning

styles of students. Previous teaching style research suggests that teachers should

understand students’ learning style preferences and match students’ learning styles

deliberately in order to enhance language learning. Students might be plagued by

anxiety if mismatches occur. In addition, some research findings advised teachers to

help students develop more learning styles by mismatching their learning styles

deliberately. Those teaching implications suggested by the style researchers seem to

be able to reflect the reality in classroom learning. Teachers tend to reduce students’

learning anxiety by changing their teaching styles in order to match with students’

learning styles and help students extend their learning styles by mismatching

deliberately.

The findings from this study suggested that many teachers changed their

teaching styles when they found that their students had problems adapting to their

teaching styles. Their teaching styles might eventually be similar to students’ learning

styles after a period of time. In addition, when teachers found mismatch between

teaching styles and learning styles existed, they would narrow the difference and help

students extend their learning styles by designing activities which would gradually

help them develop other learning styles.

The results might imply that teachers might have different teaching styles when

they teach students who have different learning styles. Hence, their teaching styles

could vary in different classrooms. In order to narrow the gap between teaching styles

  250
and learning styles, teachers would change their teaching styles, and at the same time

they might help students change their learning styles.

Most of the recent literature offers suggestions to teachers based on the learning

style research style research. However, there appears to be few studies show how

teaching styles change in response to different learning styles. The findings of this

study indicate future teaching style research should focus more on the flexibility of

teachers’ teaching styles in different classroom settings and its relations to students’

language learning.

5.5.4 Students’ English language proficiency

This study revealed that students’ English language proficiency was related to

teachers’ teaching styles. Teachers might tend to use certain teaching styles for

different levels of students in order to enhance students’ language learning. For

example, the teachers in this study pointed out that they might prefer

teacher-modeling for lower language proficiency students, but preferred less for

advanced students. There is a lack of research which investigates the relationship

between students’ language proficiency and teaching style preferences. This research

might indicate that teachers’ teaching style preferences vary in different levels of

language classrooms.

In addition, for advanced students, teachers might allow greater differences

between teaching styles and learning styles as they believed stronger students should

be able to adapt to new learning environment and accept unfamiliar teaching styles

  251
easier than lower ability students. Therefore, many teachers pointed out that they had

more types of teaching style preferences for higher ability classes than less advanced

classes. Most of the current literature focused much on whether a mismatch/match

between teaching styles and learning styles would enhance students’ language

learning, but they did not consider the flexible nature of teaching styles in classroom

learning. Future research could further explore what teaching style preferences

teachers have for different levels of students and how teachers vary their teaching

styles in different classrooms.

5.5.5 Teaching areas, syllabi and course materials of EAP courses

The teacher interviewees reported that they preferred different teaching styles

when they taught different language areas of EAP. Most of the teaching style research

usually investigated teachers’ teaching styles based on their subject areas, such as

English language and Physical Education. Those studies usually disregard the fact

that there are different learning areas in a particular subject. For example, teachers

may teach General English and EAP differently. EAP involves a mixture of language

skills such as academic reading skills, note-taking skills and academic reading skills,

whereas General English focuses on the use of English for general purposes. Most of

the tertiary institutions require students to take different levels of EAP courses in

order to prepare them well for their academic studies. Some EAP courses may focus

on certain language skills only and students are required to take those courses in

different semesters. Table 5.1 shows the English curriculum of one of the community

  252
colleges involved in this study.

Table 5.1. An Example of EAP Curriculum and Syllabi

Courses Skills

English for Effective Communication Academic reading, writing, and presentation

skills

English for Public Speaking Academic seminar and presentation skills

English for Academic Purposes Research writing

The interviewees stated that they had different teaching style preferences in

courses which had different intended learning outcomes. The syllabi of different

courses were different that students were required to meeting different learning

objectives. For example, the academic speaking courses might focus more on auditory

learning and had fewer opportunities to have visual learning when compared to

academic writing courses. The advanced EAP courses might encourage learners to be

independent learners, while the elementary EAP courses might involve more

teacher-modeling teaching style. Hence, teachers might vary their teaching styles

according to the syllabi and course requirements.

In addition, how teachers teach their students can sometimes be restricted by the

teaching materials and curriculum set by the college. As teachers have to help

students to fulfil the assessment requirements of the courses, they may have to follow

the materials closely, including the activities set by the course coordinators. As a

result, they may have to develop teaching styles according to the materials give by the

  253
college and the curriculum set by the college. The finding was consistent with

Crookes’s (1997) arguments that teachers sometimes have little control of the course

materials and how they teach is highly related to the course materials, curriculum and

school structures.

It might be difficult to determine which teaching styles EAP teachers preferred

due to the large variety of EAP courses in terms of material design and teaching areas.

The previous research might conclude that English teachers from certain countries

might prefer some teaching styles. It is questionable to conclude whether the teachers

preferred certain teaching styles because of their culture.

5.5.6 Learning and teaching culture of the institution

This study shows that teachers may vary their teaching styles with reference to

the learning and teaching culture of the institution. It appears there is limited research

that has investigated how the learning and teaching culture of an institution relates to

teachers’ teaching styles as it is difficult to compare how teachers change their

teaching styles in different institutions. Most of the teacher interviewees of this study

have extensive teaching experience in tertiary education. Some of them are teaching

on part-time basis at different colleges. The teachers found that they might change or

further develop their teaching styles when they taught at different colleges as they had

to ensure that their teaching styles could match with the teaching and learning culture

of the college. For example, some colleges might promote problem-based learning in

all courses and encourage students to be independent learners. Teachers teaching at

  254
those colleges may have higher preference to independent and analytical teaching

styles as it is easier for students to accept those teaching styles in language learning

after they get used to that in other courses. However, when they have to switch to

another institution in which most teachers have teacher-modeling teaching styles, they

may tend to adjust their teaching styles as they may worry that students are anxious to

the teaching styles which they may not be familiar with. The interview results may

show that when teachers have more exposure to different teaching cultures, they may

tend to change their teaching styles, or some teachers may even further develop their

teaching styles. Most of the research studies focus on the individual teachers’ teaching

styles, but there is no research that examines how the teaching culture of an institution

could affect teachers’ teaching styles. The results imply that curriculum planners and

school policy makers in an institution play important roles in the development of

teachers’ teaching styles which is directly related to students’ language learning.

5.5.7 Summary

The qualitative data collected from teachers suggested that teaching styles are

not stable and might vary in different educational situations. Both internal and

external factors could influence teachers’ development of teaching styles. Internal

factors include teachers’ personal learning style preferences, and their cultural and

educational background. Teachers developed their teaching styles based on their

personal learning experience and cultural background. External factors include

students’ learning style preferences, students’ English language proficiency, teaching

  255
areas and syllabi of EAP courses, and learning and teaching culture of the institution.

The external factors can cause the teachers to extend or change their teaching styles.

The results of this study might suggest that teachers may have various sets of teaching

styles in different classrooms and institutions.

5.6 Relationship between learning styles and teaching styles in Hong Kong EAP

classrooms at community college level

Student interviewees in this study found that their former teachers’ teaching

styles can influence their learning styles and their learning styles may eventually

become similar to their teachers’ teaching styles. The researcher then further explore

the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles by asking them their

perception towards the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles

regarding to their English language learning.

The research finding was consistent with the previous learning style studies

(Carbo & Hodges, 1988; Hyland, 1993; Kinsella, 1995; Nelson, 1995; Reid, 1987;

Tudor, 1996) that students preferred teachers whose teaching styles are similar to their

learning styles. They were more motivated to learn in an environment in which they

were familiar with. However, this research still could not provide evidence and

conclude whether matching learning styles and teaching styles could enhance students’

English language learning outcomes.

Another finding which was not identified by previous literature was the student

  256
interviees found that their English language proficiency and the length of time

learning English with a teacher were related to their preference towards the match or

mismatch of learning styles and teaching styles. Students who had high English

language proficiency might be more flexible to accept the style differences when

compared with those who had lower English language proficiency. The reason was

the low English language proficiency students had difficulty adapting to the new

teaching styles which they might not be familiar with and facing with the language

barrier at the same time. On the other hand, the stronger students might be easier to

adapt to the new learning environment as they had less difficulty understanding

English. Another factor influencing students’ flexibility of accepting new teaching

styles is the length of time spending with their English teacher. All of the student

participants in this study were community college students. They usually had to spend

36 – 43 hours per semester (3 – 4 months) with each English lecturer. After every

semester, students would be rearranged to different classes and taught by another

lecturer. Some students said they sometimes had difficulty adapting to different

learning environment in every 3 or 4 months. When they started to get used to a

lecturer’s teaching styles, they had to switch to another class and taught by another

teacher who had new teaching styles. The limited time spending with their English

teacher might reduce the flexibility for them to accept the differences of learning

styles and teaching styles. This might show that students might have more flexibility

to accept the mismatch of learning styles and teaching styles when they could learn

with a teacher in a longer period of time.

  257
 In spite of the fact that this study could not find out whether a deliberate match

or mismatch between learning styles and teaching styles could enhance students’

language learning, it was found that students might be able to change their learning

styles and adapt to the new learning environment with reference to their English

language proficiency and time spending with their teachers. It also further confirmed

that students generally preferred teachers who had similar styles as them. There is still

a lack of research measuring the flexibility of students’ learning style preferences and

investigating factors relating to their acceptance of new teaching styles.

The teacher interviewees agreed that a good match between learning styles and

teaching styles could provide students with an effective language learning

environment and improve students’ learning motivation. They also believed that a

mismatch between learning styles and teaching styles could help students develop

more learning styles and encourage them to develop problem-solving skills, but they

suggested that teachers should guide students carefully in order to help them face the

unfamiliar learning environment. It seems that they also agreed with the

“mismatching” theorists’ beliefs towards introducing unfamiliar teaching styles to

students (Dweck, 2007; Felder, 1993, 1995; Hunt, 1971; Joyce, Weil & Calhoun,

2015; Kolb, 1984; Rogers, 1982). Some participants emphasized that teachers should

provide students with ample support when introducing new teaching styles. This

further confirms Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development (ZPD) theory that

conceptual understanding and processes should be just above learners’ zone of

comfort and teachers should scaffold the learning process in order to maximize

  258
academic learning outcomes. Their opinions towards matching/mismatching teaching

styles and learning styles could confirm the general beliefs stated by the learning style

literature. This might suggest that both teachers and students should be flexible and

stretch their styles in order to achieve effective language learning.

Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings from students and teachers

regarding to the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles

This study revealed that both teaching styles and learning styles are flexible and

can be influenced by both internal and external factors. This finding is consistent with

the previous learning style and teaching style literature. This study also found that

there is a close relationship between teaching styles and learning styles. Teachers

tended to adjust or develop their teaching styles in order to motivate students and

maximize learning outcomes. Students in this study reported that their learning styles

were influenced by their teachers’ teaching styles and would eventually become

similar to their teachers’ teaching styles after a period of time. When integrating the

interview findings from teachers and students, it can be seen that learning styles and

teaching styles are changing simultaneously and could be influenced by each other. It

is possible that the difference between teaching styles and learning styles might

reduce and become similar after a period of time.

This study also revealed both students’ and teachers’ views towards the

“matching theory”. It was found that most of the learners preferred their teachers’

  259
teaching styles match with their own learning styles and mismatching may cause

demotivation. The findings also showed that higher language proficiency students

were more confident to accept unfamiliar teaching styles. In addition, most of the

students found that the length of time spending with their teachers was related to their

views about matching/mismatching. Many students pointed out that they preferred

teachers could match with their learning styles due to the limited time spent with their

teachers in tertiary institutions. When the gap between teaching styles and learning

styles is too large, students may have to spend more time to extend their learning

styles. This study might indicate that English language proficiency and the time factor

are related to their flexibility of accepting unfamiliar teaching styles and the

development of learning styles.

The teacher interviewees agreed that a good match with learning styles could

build an affective learning environment, but a mismatch between learning styles and

teaching styles can benefit students’ personal development and help extend students’

learning styles. They therefore would provide students with a supportive learning

environment in order to help them step out of the comfort zone and accept the

unfamiliar teaching styles. It showed that most of the teacher interviewees were trying

to strike a balance between the two theories by maximizing students’ learning

opportunities in an anxiety-free learning environment.

It is possible that learning styles and teaching style may not be congruent at the

beginning. But both teaching styles and learning styles may change when they interact

with different factors such as the cultural environment and education experiences. At

  260
the same time, learning styles and teaching styles may change when they interact with

each other. However, it should be noted that the flexibility of learning styles is based

on a number of factors. In EAP classrooms, these may include learners’ English

language proficiency and the time factor. For instance, learners who have higher

language proficiency might be more willing to develop their learning styles and

accept unfamiliar teaching styles. In contrast, the weaker students may have to spend

extra effort on overcoming both the language barrier and the unfamiliar teaching

styles. The less proficient learners who have low self-esteem may not want to take the

risk to further develop or change their learning styles due to the greater challenge they

have when compared with the proficient learners. Similarly, some Hong Kong

students may prefer teacher-centred teaching styles and feel anxious when they are

given choices designing and implementing their own learning due to their prior

learning experiences. It is sometimes difficult for learners to accept unfamiliar

teaching styles and further develop their learning styles when they have been

educated under a particular teaching style for a long period of time. Those students

may have to take longer time to accept other teaching styles. When they are given

more time and have built a good rapport with the teachers, they can accept the

unfamiliar teaching styles.

In addition, teachers may change their teaching styles when they find that some

of their styles are not effective in language classrooms, especially when their students

have difficulty accepting their teaching styles. Their teaching styles may change when

they have more teaching experiences. Certainly, many factors combine together to

  261
contribute towards different teaching styles. When both learners and teachers change

their learning styles and teaching styles, it is possible that the learning styles and

teaching styles might eventually become similar. After a certain period of time, both

learners and teachers in a particular classroom, have the potential to develop new sets

of learning styles and teaching styles which are more in congruence.

Matching teaching styles and learning may limit learning opportunities, but

mismatching can cause anxiety. It seems that both sides have drawbacks that language

teachers want to avoid. It is proposed that the framework suggested in this chapter

would be useful to address the matching/mismatching dilemma advocated by style

theorists. It was found that many teachers are willing to change their teaching styles in

order to cater for students’ needs. However, some students, especially those less

prepared students, might have difficulty accepting unfamiliar teaching styles. This

shows that researchers should focus more on increasing the flexibility of learning

styles. Most of the style literature explores the factors which make ones’ learning

styles change, but very few explore why some learners can develop their learning

styles quickly when they are exposed to different factors and more willing to accept

unfamiliar teaching styles, while some may take longer time. There are many studies

investigating what factors influencing learning styles, but very few explore how

learners face the unfamiliar teaching styles. To address the dilemma, language

teachers should find sensible ways to maximise learners’ opportunities to develop

learning styles without causing anxiety by minimizing the factors which reduce the

flexibility of learning styles in language classrooms. When learners have more

  262
flexibility to accept new teaching styles, then they can further develop their learning

styles.

5.7 Chapter summary

This chapter has discussed the qualitative and quantitative findings with

reference to the previous research on learning styles and teaching styles. It first

explains the learning styles of EAP students at community college level in Hong

Kong and analyses the factors influencing their styles with reference to the

educational contexts in Hong Kong and previous style literature. It also explores

students’ perceptions towards the relationship between learning styles and teaching

styles in EAP classrooms. It then examines teachers’ teaching styles and the related

factors, and their perceptions towards both styles. Based on the discussion of findings,

this chapter proposes an integration framework to explain the relationship between

learning styles and teaching styles in EAP classrooms.

It is clear that teaching styles and learning styles are influenced by both internal

and external factors which make them flexible and subject to change based on a range

of phenomena, chief of which are academic orientation and experiences teachers

bring with them into the learning environment (Macfarlane, 2007). In addition,

teaching styles and learning styles can be influenced reciprocally. When learners and

teachers interact with each other for a period of time, their styles may become more

congruent. However, learners’ ability to accept new teaching styles and their

  263
flexibility of learning styles depend on their English language proficiency and the

length of time interacting with their teachers. The framework suggests that teachers

should minimize the unfavourable factors which would adversely affect their ability

of accepting unfamiliar teaching styles and the development of new learning styles.

The final chapter will provide educational implications based on the findings and

the new framework proposed in this thesis and explain the potential contributions of

the study, reflect on the limitations and provide recommendations for future research.

  264
Chapter 6: Conclusion

6.1 Overview

Based on the discussion of findings in the previous chapter, this chapter aims at

providing educational implications on teaching and learning in EAP classrooms. It

also will espouse the potential contributions that the study can offer this field of

education. Limitations of the research will also be outlined. Finally, recommendations

for future research on learning styles and teaching styles will be proposed.

6.2 Educational implications

Understanding learners’ flexibility for developing learning styles as well as accepting

unfamiliar teaching styles.

When investigating the relationship between learning styles and teaching styles,

it was found that that flexibility of learning styles and the ability to accept unfamiliar

teaching styles differ among English language learners. This research shows that

learners who have higher English language proficiency tend to have higher flexibility

for accepting unfamiliar teaching styles. In contrast, learners who have lower English

language proficiency may have difficulty adapting to new teaching styles as they have

to spend more effort confronting both the language barrier and the new teaching styles.

In addition, when learners are given more time to learn with their teachers, they may

  265
have higher chance to accept unfamiliar teaching styles. This indicates that teachers

should first get to know students’ learning ability and their flexibility for accepting

new pedagogical constructs.

Although the student participants in this study primarily reflect that English

language proficiency and length of time learning with their teachers are directly

related to their acceptability of new teaching styles, this study also highlights the

importance of the influence of educational and cultural backgrounds on students’

development of learning styles. Students who have been educated under a particular

culture and education system for a long period of time may be attuned to the

development of particular sets of learning styles. They may experience anxiety if

teachers do not provide enough support when mismatches occur, especially when they

have been learning through familiar teaching styles for a long period of time. For

instance, many Hong Kong students interviewed in this study were educated in a

learning culture which regards teachers as the authority on knowledge. When learners

are given opportunities to direct their own learning and design their learning tasks,

they may feel uncomfortable as this way of learning and it may clash with their own

cultural beliefs in terms of education provision. This does not mean that learners are

not able to accept new teaching styles. It is clear that when they are given ample time

and support, students can adapt their learning styles and accept unfamiliar teaching

styles. On the other hand, if teachers do not have a good understanding of learners’

cultural and educational backgrounds, English language proficiency, and other factors

related to the development of learning styles, they may not be able to evaluate

  266
students’ ability to accept new teaching styles, and have the flexibility for developing

learning styles. Consequently, teachers should be aware of what and how different

factors relate to students’ development of learning styles, as well as evaluating

students’ abilities for accepting new teaching styles when they find that there is a

mismatch between learning styles and teaching styles.

Promoting intellectual risk-taking by setting a supportive learning environment

This study shows that some students have less flexibility for accepting new

teaching styles. The reasons for this might be that they may not be confident of taking

on new challenges due to their poor language proficiency or the nature of the learning

tasks. For example, many students prefer to use their familiar approaches to learning

when they have assessments. Many community college students are afraid of taking

intellectual risks in assessments which may affect their promotion opportunities to

university. In addition, weaker students, especially those who experience low-esteem,

may feel anxious when encountering new challenges due to the demanding language

barrier they face. When teachers introduce new teaching styles, students who are

afraid of risk-taking may feel uncomfortable and this may affect their English

language learning opportunities.

By the vary nature, community college education aims at giving students

opportunities to further their studies or career development. Assessments are

benchmarks for stakeholders (e.g. university education providers and employers) to

evaluate students’ English language ability under the academic quality assurance

  267
system. To encourage students to take risks while implementing assessments, one-off

examinations or assessments should be avoided. Although continuous assessments are

implemented in most of the community colleges in Hong Kong, students are in awe of

making mistakes in these assessment tasks as their performances (grades) are closely

related to their university promotion opportunities.

In order to encourage intellectual risk-taking in learning, teachers should give

constructive feedback regularly to students while students are preparing for their

assignments. For example, in academic writing courses, teachers can encourage

students to submit their academic writing drafts in different stages and give feedback

to them directly and/or include peer evaluation activities. When students are given

this type of regular feedback without considering their examination grades, they may

be more willing to step out their comfort zone and develop a habit of risk-taking in

academic tasks. Furthermore, students should be given opportunities to try different

approaches of learning under a stress-free environment. One example is that many

students are not confident with discovering English language patterns as they may not

have experienced this type of learning before. Students may feel stressful if this type

of learning is included in an assessment (e.g. class presentations). If teachers provide

enough support by demonstrating examples and giving them some achievable practice

in class, they may start to develop interest in analytical learning and be more

confident with this type of learning.

In addition, students should be given enough time to adapt to the new learning

environment. As suggested by the interview findings, students may be more willing to

  268
accept new styles when they are given enough time. Certainly, some students may

take more time to accept unfamiliar teaching styles than others due to a range of

factors, including English language proficiency and cultural background. When

students understand that mistakes are not frowned upon, are encouraged firmly but

fairly, and are given time to work through the assigned tasks, they may then start to

develop the ability of risk-taking and be more willing to accept new learning and

teaching styles. Being a successful intellectual risk-taker is essential for maximizing

opportunities to language development.

Additionally, when teachers find that mismatches occur, they should minimize

students’ possible anxiety by building good rapport with students. Only when students

are motivated, can they be able to overcome any academic challenges they face. This

is well supported by the monitor model of second language acquisition developed by

Krashen (1981). According to the affective filter hypothesis in the model, low

motivation, low self-esteem and high anxiety can raise the affective filter which

prevents learners from receiving comprehensible input for language acquisition.

Positive affect is necessary for any stage of language acquisition. If students are

motivated by their teachers through careful instructional planning and positive

reinforcements, the impacts of those factors may be reduced. It is also essential in

culturally diverse classrooms where cultural clashes can easily exist. Therefore, when

there is a big difference between learning styles and teaching styles, teachers should

first reduce this difference by adjusting their teaching styles in order to minimize the

anxiety among students. Based on students’ flexibility of accepting unfamiliar

  269
teaching styles, teachers can then start to introduce new teaching styles gradually.

Designing a balanced English language curriculum and assessment system

Many students commented that the exam-oriented education system in Hong

Kong has a great influence on the development of learning styles. Although education

reform in Hong Kong has changed the assessment format and introduced

school-based assessments / continuous assessments, the education system still places

much emphasis on final one-off examinations which constitute most of the marks in

the overall subject grades in public examinations.

The assessment format of English Language in the Hong Kong Diploma of

Secondary Education Examination as an example. The school-based assessments /

continuous assessments count for merely 15%, while the one-off final public

examination counts for 85%. Both teachers and students may therefore spend more

time on the preparation of the one-off public examinations. The one-off public

examination focuses much on individual written paperwork and only 10% of the

assessments are related to speaking and group work activities. Undoubtedly, being

educated under this kind of system, English language learning style development may

tend to be restricted by the limited variety of learning tasks. When they further their

studies at tertiary institutions and study EAP, they may still retain the English

language learning styles they developed in secondary school education. Although

continuous assessments are widely adopted in tertiary education, it should be taken

into account that students might still prefer to use the learning approaches they

  270
experienced in secondary schools. It would seem that the English language

curriculum in secondary schools should be further improved as this might limit

students’ development of learning styles, as well as their English language

development. Moreover, tertiary institutions should also design English language

syllabi and curricula which promote a balanced development of learning styles.

Curriculum designers should focus more on continuous assessments which include a

wide variety of learning tasks.

For example, in EAP academic writing courses, teachers can divide writing

assessments into different stages: (1) drafting, (2) proposal presentations, (3) peer

evaluation on the drafts, and (4) writing up the final drafts. In addition, teachers can

provide continuous feedback on the assessments. Compared with the traditional

one-off assessments, the wide variety of continuous assessments suggested gives

students more time to develop more learning styles in a less stressful environment. In

the example above, stages one and four involve individual written work, while stages

2 and 3 involve oral and group work. In all stages, students can have the opportunity

to develop different styles such as analytical and independent learning. In contrast, if

students are only required to submit a final essay, this may limit students’

opportunities to develop other learning styles. Assessments are not only useful tools

to evaluate students’ performance, but also can motivate students to enhance their

English language development.

Implementing small-class teaching

  271
This study shows that students’ English language learning styles vary due to their

differences in educational backgrounds, English language proficiency and other

factors. In Hong Kong community college classrooms, class sizes range from 15 to 35.

Some colleges arrange students from different disciplines and programmes to have

English classes together. In Hong Kong, small-class teaching has been introduced in

some primary schools and secondary schools. However, there is a dearth of research

investigating the relationship between class size and academic outcomes at tertiary

level in Hong Kong. Compared with English language classes at university level, the

differences in English language proficiency between students in the same class seem

to be greater as community colleges have lower English language requirements than

universities. If class sizes are too large, teachers may have difficulty catering for

students’ needs due to their differences in learning styles, English language

proficiency, educational and cultural backgrounds. When mismatches between

learning styles and teaching styles occur, it may also be difficult for teachers to adjust

their teaching styles to reduce students’ anxiety if the class size is too large. The

relationship between class size and college students’ achievements has been widely

discussed mostly in the Western countries where English is their first language. Class

size is closely related to students’ motivation and attitudes. Small-class teaching is

essential for courses which emphasize critical thinking, long-term retention and

attitudes towards the discipline.

In diverse community college classrooms, some students may suffer from

anxiety when they have to overcome the language barrier and confront with the new

  272
teaching styles. Unfortunately, due to the large class sizes, teachers may have

difficulty identifying those students and adjusting their teaching styles. When this

situation arises, those unidentified students may be demotivated and their language

development may be hindered. Community colleges in Hong Kong should reduce the

class sizes of English language courses to around 20 students in order to maximize

academic outcomes and cater for students’ diverse learning styles.

6.3 Contributions of the research

The notions of learning styles and teaching styles, and the relationships between

them have been considered as controversial topics in the research fields of educational

psychology and second language acquisition. This research sheds new light on those

controversial topics by investigating learning styles and teaching styles in EAP

classrooms at community college level in Hong Kong.

This study provides both quantitative and qualitative data on EAP students’

learning styles, and has analyzed the relationship between learning styles and

different factors such as gender and educational backgrounds. Most of the learning

style research explains the relationship between learning styles based on quantitative

data. This study provides a more comprehensive analysis of the nature of learning

styles in English language classrooms based on both quantitative and qualitative

research. It shows that students who were educated in the same cultural environment

could have different learning styles, and concludes that there are other factors other

  273
than cultural background that could influence students’ learning styles. This indicates

that the previous learning style research might have put too much emphasis on

cultural influence and that research on Chinese ESL/EFL students could not fully

explain their learning styles. It suggests that researchers and educationalists should

avoid cultural stereotyping when researching and teaching students from different

cultures. In addition, some learning style literature assumes that learning styles are

static in nature and resistant to change in a short period of time. This study suggests

that students’ learning styles are flexible and can be altered when they interact with

the external factors such as teachers’ teaching styles and educational contexts, over

time.

This study shows the potential limitations of using questionnaire surveys for

examining teaching styles, and questions the reliability and validity of teaching style

inventories developed by style theorists. The evidence from this study reveals that

teaching styles are flexible and could be changed when they interact with external

factors such as students’ learning styles and English language proficiency. Due to

their flexible nature, teaching styles could not be measured accurately by using

questionnaires as it was suggested by participants that teachers may have different

teaching styles when they teach in different classrooms.

This study also suggests a new framework explaining the relationship between

learning styles and teaching styles in English language classrooms which may help

address the dilemma of the “matching theory” in the learning style literature. The

traditional “matching theory” states that teaching styles and learning styles should be

  274
well-matched in order to enhance students’ learning motivation and enhance language

learning. In contrast, opponents of the “matching theory” advocate that a deliberate

mismatch between learning styles and teaching styles could increase students’

exposure to unfamiliar teaching styles and encourage them to further develop learning

styles. However, this may cause anxiety to some students when mismatches occur.

The findings of the study suggest that both learning styles and teaching styles are

flexible and can be influenced by each other, as well as other internal and external

factors. Learners may try to develop their learning styles in order to meet academic

requirements, while teachers may adjust their teaching styles so as to provide students

with an affective learning environment. When learners and teachers have more

interaction with each other, their styles may become more similar to each other.

However, the flexibility of students developing their learning styles based on the

exposure to unfamiliar teaching styles is related to several factors. The study

identifies that students’ English language proficiency and the length of time with their

teachers determine the extent to which learners can accept unfamiliar teaching styles.

A proposed new framework concludes that providing an effective learning

environment and allowing sufficient time for students to adapt to the new

environment are the prerequisites of encouraging students to accept new teaching

styles. It also suggests the need for improving students’ flexibility of developing

learning styles by minimizing all possible unfavourable factors. The style literature

usually suggests that students’ learning styles are affected by both internal and

external factors, but very few studies explore why some learners can develop their

  275
learning styles quickly and are more willing to accept unfamiliar teaching styles,

while others take longer time and are less willing to adapt themselves to different

teaching styles. The new framework suggested in this study may be useful for style

researchers to further investigate how to help learners develop their learning styles

effectively and maximize language learning outcomes in diverse classrooms.

This study, it is argued, successfully fills a research gap in the area of learning

styles and teaching styles in EAP classrooms at community college level. The

findings of this research provide classroom practitioners and curriculum planners

valuable information on learning styles and teaching styles for curriculum planning

and teacher training.

6.4 Limitations of the research

Despite the fact that this study suggests important educational implications for

English language education, especially in the teaching and learning of EAP at

community college level in Hong Kong, there are a number of limitations in this study

which may affect the generalizability of the research findings.

Firstly, due to limitation of time and human resources, this research could not

cover all community colleges in Hong Kong and therefore invited research

participants from the two largest community colleges in Hong Kong only.

Furthermore, originally the researcher planned to invite 30 EAP teacher participants.

However, due to the tight teaching schedules and limited number of EAP teachers,

only 10 teacher participants agreed to be involved in this study. It may not be able to

  276
generalize the results on teachers’ teaching styles accurately since the limited number

of participants may potentially affect the generalizability of the research findings.

The second limitation is the collection of quantitative findings from students.

According to the college policy on the medium of instructions in both colleges, all

class activities, except the Chinese language courses, should be conducted in English.

The researcher could not provide Chinese translation of the student questionnaire and

explained the questionnaires using students’ first language. Some weaker language

students might have difficulty understanding some of the statements and gave the

wrong responses due to the language barrier. Another possible problem is that some

students were not motivated to complete the questionnaire as they believed the

research was irrelevant to their studies. As a result, some students might not have

filled out the questionnaire seriously and their responses may not accurately represent

their actual beliefs towards learning styles. Additionally, many students avoided

choosing the extreme options (i.e. strongly agree / disagree), as described in the

literature pieces earlier.

East Asian culture emphasizes harmony in social relationships by avoiding

extreme options. The results of that can be seen when presenting the statistics of

students’ learning style preferences. Many learning styles are categorized as minor

learning styles which is possibly because of their hesitation about giving extreme

answers. When designing this questionnaire, the researcher had already considered

that and tried to avoid the “cultural shyness” impact by using 6-point scales, instead

of 5-point scales, in order to improve the accuracy of the results.

  277
 The third limitation is that the data collection method from both teachers and

students mainly relied on verbal self-report. It is possible that what students and

teachers reported might not reflect what they actually think. Although students were

asked to report their beliefs using their first language, some students still might not be

able to explain their thoughts clearly and accurately.

In addition, some students might be hesitant to express what they actually

thought in group interviews when they found that their beliefs were different from

others or may have offended other students. For example, one of the students said

they might not want to work with low proficiency students. Some respondents may

feel embarrassed to explain this idea directly and clearly in front of other students as

this may offend their classmates and this is also considered to be selfish in Chinese

culture.

Students may try to answer the interview questions based on social norms, but

not their own beliefs. Moreover, as the researcher was also a teaching staff member in

both colleges, some students may worry that the researcher would disclose their

answers to their teachers. They may try to avoid answers which may offend the

teachers as well. To offset those problems, the researcher had build a good rapport

with students by having casual talks at the beginning and explaining clearly the data

collected would be kept anonymous and confidential. For teacher participants, those

problems were less likely. However, it is still possible that some teachers might have

difficulty expressing their ideas clearly as teaching style is an abstract concept.

The last limitation of this study is convenience sampling was used due to

  278
limitation of time. Both teachers and students were invited to participate in this study

voluntarily. The data collected might not be able to represent unmotivated learners

and teachers’ beliefs towards learning styles and teaching styles. For example, this

research only could interview 10 teachers, who had close relationships with the

researcher, and who were interested in second / foreign language teaching and

learning research. For student interviews, not all students agreed to participate in the

interviews, especially the less motivated students. Therefore, this study could not

explain whether students’ motivation is related to their flexibility of learning styles. It

also could not examine whether less motivated teachers would adapt their teaching

styles based on students’ learning styles.

6.5 Recommendations for future research

Drawing on the implications and limitations of the study, style researchers

should use an integrated approach to explore the nature of learning styles and teaching

styles and the relationship between them in English language classrooms. This

research indicates that the development of learning styles and teaching styles involves

the interplay of different factors. The relationship between them in classroom learning

is complex. This study employed questionnaire surveys and interviews to explore

learning styles and teaching styles. It is suggested that future research should use

different research methods to explore learning styles and teaching styles in-depth. As

stated in the previous section on limitations, the self-report questionnaire surveys and

interviews may not reflect the full picture of learning styles and teaching styles

  279
accurately. In addition, this study found that there are limitations of using

questionnaire surveys to examine teaching styles. It is suggested that style researchers

can explore other possible methods such as case studies, think-aloud methods and

observations to investigate learning styles and teaching styles. Integrating the research

results derived from different research methods can help build a clearer understanding

about learning styles and teaching styles.

In addition, due to time limitation, the researcher had difficulty inviting students

and teachers from other community colleges to participate in this research. To

increase the generalizability and replicability of style research, future researchers can

expand the research population. For instance, this study could only interview 10 EAP

teachers. Views about teaching styles may not fully reflect all teachers’ views about

teaching styles and learning styles. Apparently, involving more research participants

from different institutions can improve the generalizability and replicability of the

research.

Furthermore, most of the style literature focuses on whether matching or

mismatching learning styles and teaching styles could bring benefits to language

learning. The evidence of this research, however, suggests that both learning styles

and teaching styles are flexible. Educationalists should explore further why some

learners have higher flexibility to accept unfamiliar teaching styles and extend their

learning styles. In addition, they should also explore the factors which could enhance

learners’ flexibility to develop their learning styles and the unfavourable factors

which would obstruct their development of learning styles. For example, experimental

  280
research can be done to investigate how to encourage learners to accept new teaching

styles without causing anxiety.

Moreover, the results of this study mainly relied on the research participants’

self-report findings due to time limitation. The findings of this study indicate that both

learners and teachers might change their styles when they have more learning and

teaching experiences. To further examine the nature of learning styles and teaching

styles, longitudinal research can be done to investigate clearly what possible factors

might be related to the change of their styles. Those findings could certainly help

researchers understand how to help learners develop their learning styles through

careful curriculum planning and would also be useful for teachers’ professional

development.

6.6 Chapter summary

This research reaffirms the complex nature of learning styles and teaching styles,

and the relationship between them in classroom learning, especially in English

language classrooms in community colleges. The research findings suggest that

learning styles and teaching styles from different perspectives and put more emphasis

on the interaction between different factors contributing to the development of the

styles. In addition, they should also note the flexible nature of learning styles and

teaching styles. This study has provided educationalists and curriculum planners with

a better understanding of how to incorporate learning styles into the curriculum and

  281
lesson planning, especially in the teaching and learning of EAP. This chapter

concludes the research study by providing educational implications based on the

research findings. It also suggests that the relationship between learning styles and

teaching styles should be further explored in order to improve the educational

experiences of students and maximize educational outcomes.

  282
 References

Akbari, R., & Allvar, N. K. (2010). L2 teacher characteristics as predictors of students’

academic achievement. TESL-EJ, 13(4). Retrieved from
[Link]

Akbarzadeh, M., & Fatemipour, H. (2014). Examining the match or mismatch

between teaching style preferences and upper-intermediate EFL learners’
learning style preferences. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98,
137-142.

Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14,
115-129.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY:

Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

Amir, R., & Jelas, Z. M. (2010). Teaching and learning styles in higher education
institutions: Do they match. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(3),
680–4.

Anderson, J. O., Muir, W., Bateson, D. J., Blackmore, D., & Rogers, W. T. (1990).
The impact of provincial examinations on education in British Columbia:
General report. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Education.

Apter, M. J. (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to reversal theory.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ashmore, R. D. (1990). Sex, gender, and the individual. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 486-526). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Avery, R. E. (1985). An assessment of the relationship between teacher, teaching style,

student learning style, and the academic achievement of twelfth grade students
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Axelrod, J. (1970). Teaching styles in the humanities. In W. H. Morris (Ed.), Effective

college teaching (pp. 38–55). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education.

Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Correlates of anxiety at three
stages of the foreign language learning process. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 19, 474–490.

Balla, J. R., Stokes, M. J., Stafford, K. J., & Yeung, H. F. (1991). The study process
questionnaire: Norms derived at the City polytechnic of Hong Kong. Technical
Report No. 2. Hong Kong: Professional Development Unit, City Polytechnic of
Hong Kong.

  283
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide for
lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Baneshi, A. R., Dehghan, T. M., & Mokhtarpour, H. (2014). Grasha-Richmann

college students' learning styles of classroom participation: Role of gender and
major. Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism, 2(3),
103-107.

Bassey, M. (1981). Pedagogic research: On the relative merits of search for

generalisation and study of single events. Oxford Review of Education, 7(1),
73-94.

Beck, C. (1998). A taxonomy for identifying, classifying, and interrelating teaching

strategies. The Journal of General Education, 47, 37-62.

Bennett, N., Jordan, J., Long, G., & Wade, B. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil
progress. London, England: Open Books.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Biggs, J. (1996) Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture.

In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,
psychological and contextual influences (pp. 45-67). CERC and ACER, Hong
Kong: The Central Printing Press.

Biggs, J. B., & Moore, P. J. (1993). The process of learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Prentice Hall.

Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture counts: Changing power relations in
education. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Black, R. (1993). A match of learning style to teaching style based on use of

hemispheric dominance theory to enhance learning of creative thinking skills
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia.

Bowen, C. E., & Madsen, C. H. (1978). Teaching style: A primary determinant of

student motivation. Boston University Journal of Education, 160(4), 16-24.

Bradley, D., & Bradley, M. (1984). Problems of Asian students in Australia:

Language, culture and education. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government
Publishing Service.

Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2009). Doing second language research. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.

Chalmers, D., & Violet, S. (1997). Common misconceptions about students from

  284
 South-east Asia studying in Australia. Higher Education Research and
Development Journal, 16(1), 87-98.

Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher-efficacy for pre- and in-service teachers

in Scotland and America. Journal of Education, 117, 2-12.

Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner – a question of style. Education Training,

41(6/7), 294 – 305.

Chan, C. K. K. (2001) Promoting learning and understanding through constructivist

approaches for Chinese learners. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.),
Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp.
181-204). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, the University
of Hong Kong.

Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies can help students at risk.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 20(4), 55-58.

Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 1(1), 37–60.

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models and measures.

Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.

Chamot, A. U. (2001). Teaching learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The

ACIE Newsletter, 5(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
[Link]

Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong
Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and Research in
Education, 16(1), 1-18.

Chan, Y. Y. G., & Watkins, D. (1994). Classroom environment and approaches to

learning: An investigation of the actual and preferred perceptions of Hong Kong
secondary school students. Instructional Science, 22, 233-246.

Chang, D. Y. (2003). English language learning strategies and style preferences of

traditional and non-traditional students in Taiwan (China) (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of South Dakota.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory. In M. S .Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F.

Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 440-444).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chu, M. (1997). Asian-Chinese students’ learning in New Zealand secondary schools

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Claxton, C., & Murrell, P. (1988). Learning styles. Retrieved from

[Link]

  285
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and
pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex,

England: Longman.

Cohen, A. D. (2003).The learner's side of foreign language learning: Where do styles,

strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41,
279-291.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Conti, G. J. (1998). Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.),

Adult learning methods (pp. 73-84). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. London, England:
Arnold.

Cooper, C. (2001). Foreign language teaching style and personality. Foreign

Language Annals, 34, 301-16.

Cornett, C. E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles.
Bloomington, IL: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom.

In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom (pp. 54 – 65). London,
England: Modern English Publications / the British Council.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Crookes, G. (1997). What influences what and how second and foreign language
teachers teach? Modern Language Journal, 81(1), 67–79.

Cross, J., & Hitchcock, R. (2007) Chinese Students’ (or students from China’s) view
of UK HE: Differences, difficulties and benefits, and suggestions for facilitating
transition. The East Asian Learner, 3(2), 1 – 31.

Cross, P. (1979). Adult learners: Charateristics, needs and interests. In R. E. Peterson

(Ed.), Lifelong learning in America (pp. 9, 23-24). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Curry, L. (1983, April). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research.
Retrieved from [Link]

Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with

  286
 attention to psychometric standards. Learning Styles Network.

Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of
memorisng and understanding: A comparison of the views of Western and
Chinese school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 65-84.

De Vita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the

multicultural classroom: A business and management perspective. Innovations in
Education & Teaching International, 38(2), 165-175.

DeCapua, A., & Wintergerst, A.C. (2001). Exploring the learning styles of
Russian-speaking ESL students. The CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 23-46.

Dills, C. R., & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). The instructional development paradigm:

An introduction. In C. R. Dills, & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional
development paradigms. Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dunn, J., Brown, J., & Beardsall, L. (1991). Family talk about emotions, and
children's later understanding of others' emotions. Developmental Psychology, 27,
448-455.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their individual
learning styles. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relation to exceptionality at both ends of the
spectrum. Exceptional Children, 49, 496-506.

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

Dunn, R. (1990). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the
need for individual. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities
International, 6, 223-247.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual
learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7 – 12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles inservice
system. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). The learning style inventory. Lawrence,
KS: Price Systems.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1979). Identifying individual learning styles. In
Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 39-54).
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

  287
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and
development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY:
Ballatine Books.

Ebata, M. (2009). Motivation and demotivation factors in language learning. In M. A.

Vyas & Y. L. Patel (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A new
pedagogy for a new century (pp. 183-193). New Delhi, India: PHI Learning.

Curriculum Development Council. (2006). Senior secondary curriculum guide

(Secondary 4-6): Booklet one. Retrieved from
[Link]

Education Commission. (1994). Report of the working group on language proficiency.

Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education World. (2004). How can teachers develop students' motivation and success?
Retrieved from [Link]

Ehrman, M. E., (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner
training. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Evans, S. & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP.
ELT Journal, 65(4), 387-397.

Evans, S., & Green, C. (2007). Why EAP is necessary: A survey of Hong Kong
tertiary students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(1), 3-17.

Evans, S., (1996). The context of English language education: The case of Hong
Kong. RELC Journal, 27(2), 30–55.

Felder, R. R. (1995). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and

retention: Instructional methods and student responses to them. Journal of
Engineering Education, 84(4), 361- 367.

Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1991). Age expectations of behavioural

autonomy in Hong Kong, Australian and American youth: The influence of
family variables and adolescents’ values. International Journal of Psychology,
26, 1–23.

Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library of

  288
 Information Science Research, 15(3), 219-247.

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied

to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22(4), 16-22.

Fixed mindset vs. growth mindset: Which one are you? (2007). Retrieved from
[Link]
e-you/

Fleming, N. D. (2006). V.A.R.K visual, aural/auditory, read/write, kinesthetic.

Christchurch, New Zealand: Microfilm.

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for
Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The

case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-296.

Flowerdew, J., Miller, L., & Li, D. (2000). Chinese lecturers’ perceptions, problems
and strategies in lecturing in English to Chinese-speaking students. RELC
Journal, 31(1), 116-137.

Flynn, J. R. (1991). Asian Americans — Achievement beyond IQ. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/Mismatching revisited: An empirical study

of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Technology, 32(1), 5-22.

Gage, J. D., Kirk, R., & Hornblow, A. (2009) Heart and head: Explanation of the
meaning of fatherhood. Retrieved from
[Link]
ood

Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional

design (4th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th

edition). New York, NY: CBS College Publishing.

Gailbraith, M. W., & Sanders, R. E. (1987). Relationships between perceived learning

style and teaching style of junior college education. Community Junior College
Quarterly of Research and Practice, 11, 169-177.

Galloway, V., & Labarca, A. (1990). From student to learner: Style, process, and
strategy. In D. W. Birchbichler (Ed.), New perspectives and new directions in
foreign language education (pp. 111-158). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
Co and ACTFL.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York,

  289
 NY: Basic Book.

Garger, S., & Guild, P. (1984). Learning styles: The crucial differences. Curriculum
Review, 23, 9-12.

Gay, L., Mills. G., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and application (8th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Gieve, S., & Clark, R. (2005). 'The Chinese approach to learning': Cultural trait or
situated response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System, 33,
261-276

Giles, J., Ryan, D. A. J., Belliveau, G., De Fritas, E., & Casey, R. (2006). Teaching
style and learning in a quantitative classroom. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 7(3), 213- 225.

Glynn, T. (1998). Bicultural challenges for educational professionals in Aotearoa.

Waikato Journal of Education, 4, 3-16.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam
Books.

Grasha, A .F. (1991). The holistic stress test manual. Cincinnati, OH: Communication
and Education Associates.

Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by

understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.

Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College Teaching, 50(4),

139-146.

Grasha, A. F., & Riechmann, S. W. (1974). A rational approach to developing and

assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument. The
Journal of Psychology, 87, 213- 223.

Gregore, A. F. (1979). Learning – teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In J. W.

Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing programs
(pp.19-26). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Hadfield, J. (2006). Teacher education and trainee learning style. RELC Journal,
37(2), 367-386.

Hainer, E.V., Fagan, B., Bratt, T., Baker, L. & Arnold, N. (1990). Integrating
learning styles and skills in the ESL classroom. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Harris, L.V., Sadowski, M. A., & Birchman, J.A. (2004). A comparison of learning
style models and assessment instruments for university graphics educators.
Engineering Design Graphics Division 58th Mid Year Meeting Proceedings,
Williamsburg, VA.

  290
Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1996). Achievement goals and causal attributions of Chinese
students. In S. Lau (Ed.), Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and
adolescent development (pp. 121-146). Hong Kong: The Chinese University
Press.

Havey, J., & Hunt, E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality
organization. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 17-25.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. N. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult

education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ho, J. & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner
autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235-243.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in

work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 301-20.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. J. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4-21.

Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: Managing learning or managing to learn.

In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learning strategies and language learning (pp.
145-157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead,
England: Peter Honey.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper’s guide. Maidenhead,
England: Peter Honey.

Hu, G. W. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of

communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
15(2), 93–105.

Hudson-Ross, S., & Dong, Y. R. (1990). Literacy learning as a reflection of language

and culture: Chinese elementary school education. The Reading Teacher, 44(2),
110-123.

Hyland, K. (1993). Culture and learning: A study of the learning style preferences of
Japanese students. RELC Journal, 24(2), 69-91.

Hyland, K. (1997). Do our students really need EAP?. Perspectives, 9(1), 35-62.

Information Services Department. (2015). Hong Kong: The facts. Retrieved from

  291
 [Link]

Isemonger, I. M., & Sheppard, C. (2007). A construct-related validity study on a

Korean version of the perceptual learning styles preference questionnaire.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 357-368.

Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. London,
England: Routledge.

Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Jones, B. A. (2006). Practice to theory to practice: Sharing my story. In K.

Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.). JALT2005 Conference
Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan: JALT.

Jones, N. B. (1997, April). Applying learning styles research to improve writing

instruction. Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language
Learning, Singapore.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Models of teaching. Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Jung, C. G. (1968). Analytical psychology: Its theory and practice — The Tavistock
lectures. New York, NY: Random House.

Kagan, J. (1965). Individual difference in the resolution of response uncertainty.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 154-160.

Kaminska, P. M. (2014). Learning styles and second language education. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Kashima, E. S. & Hardie, E. S. (2000). The development and validation of the

relational, individual, and collective self-aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 3, 19-48.

Kasim, T. S. A. T. (2012). Teaching and learning experiences in Malaysian higher

education: A case study of a teacher education programme (Unpublished
doctoral thesis). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology.

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.

  292
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kelly, M. E., Wong, S. S., & Pratt, D. D. (1997). Informing the evaluation of teaching:
Does culture matter when assessing effective teaching?, Sub-project of the UGC
funded project evaluation of the student experience.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the
quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74.

Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of
teaching and learning. London, England: Kogan Page.

Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings

about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong
Education, 21(5), 430-445.

Kinsella, K. & Sherak, K. (1998). Designing ESL classroom collaboration to

accommodate diverse work styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Understanding learning
styles in the second language classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.

Kinsella, K. (1995). Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In J. Reid (Ed.),

Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp.170-194). Boston, MA: Heinle.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory – Version 3.1:
2005 technical specifications. Retrieved from
[Link]

Kolb, D. (1976). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.

Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Kroon, D. K. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effects on academic

achievement and the resultant administrative implications of instruction
congruent and incongruent with secondary, industrial arts students' learning
style perceptual preferences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John's
University.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching.

World Englishes, 4(22), 539-550.

Larson, D. (2007). Self-Awareness about teaching style: Development of a

tool. Proceedings of the 2007 American Society for Engineering Education

  293
 Pacific Southwest Annual Conference.

Lau, S. (Ed.) (1996). Growing up the Chinese way. Hong Kong: The Chinese
University Press.

Leaver, B. L. (1986). Hemisphericity of the brain and foreign language teaching.

Folio Slavica, 8, 2- 5.

Lee, A. (2013). Fewer Hong Kong teens expect to complete university. South China
Morning Post. Retrieved from
[Link]
mplete-university-compared-singapore

Lee, C. (1996a). Children and private tuition. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Federation of
Youth Groups.

Lee, W. O. (1996b). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of

learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The
Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25-41).
Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Victoria, Australia: The
Australian Council for the Educational Research.

Lenz, E. (1982). The art of teaching adults. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.

Leung, K. K., Lue, B. H., & Lee M. B. (2003). Development of a teaching style
inventory for tutor evaluation in problem-based learning. Medical Education, 37,
410-416.

Li, J., & Qin, X. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of
tertiary-level English learners in China. Regional Language Center Journal, 37,
367-390.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Little, D. & Singleton, D. (1990). Cognitive style and learning approach. In R. Duda
& P. Riley (Eds.), Learning styles (pp.11-19). Nancy, France: University of
Nancy.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Questioning some assumptions about East Asian students.

Hong Kong Baptist University Papers in Applied Language Studies, 4, 142-153.

Littlewood, W. (2003). Students’ perceptions of classroom learning in East Asia and

Europe. Hong Kong Baptist University Papers in Applied Language Studies, 7.
Retrieved from [Link]

Littlewood, W., Liu, N. F., & Yu, C. (1996). Hong Kong tertiary students' attitudes
and proficiency in spoken English. RELC Journal, 27(1), 70-88.

Littrell, R. F. (2006). Learning styles of students in and from Confucian cultures.

  294
 Retrieved from [Link]

Liu, N. F., & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to
participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384.

Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999). Cognitive styles and distance education. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved from
[Link]

Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching (2nd ed.) San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Lu, L. (2008). The individual-oriented and social-oriented Chinese bicultural self:

Testing the theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 347-373.

Lu, D., & Julien, R. (2001). The delivery of EAP courses (English for Academic
Purposes) within the changing linguistic landscape of Hong Kong: A time for
reassessment. RELC Journal, 32(1), 106–119.

Lu, L., & Yang, K. (2006). Emergence and composition of the traditional-modern
bicultural self of people in contemporary Taiwanese societies. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 9, 167-175.

Macfarlane, A. (2004). Kia hiwa ra! Listen to culture - Māori students’ plea to
educators. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.

Macfarlane, A., & Macfarlane, S. (2012). Weaving the dimensions of culture and
learning: Implications for educators. In B. Kaur (Ed.), Understanding teaching
and learning: Classroom research revisited (pp. 213-224). Rotterdam,
Netherlands: Sense Publications.

Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., & Bateman, S. (2007). Creating culturally
safe schools for Māori students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education,
36, 65–76.

Macfarlane, A., Macfarlane, S., Webber, M. (2015). Social cultural realities:

Exploring new horizons. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University
Press.

Macfarlane, A., Webber, M., Cookson-Cox, C., & McRac, H. (2014). Ka awatea: An
iwi case study of Maori students’ success. Retrieved from
[Link]
0March_0.pdf

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marton, F., Alba, G. D., & Kun, T. L. (1996) Memorizing and understanding: The
keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:
Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69-83). CERC and ACER,

  295
 Hong Kong: The Central Printing Press.

Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Tse, L.K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The
keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:
Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69–83). Hong Kong: The
University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Education, Comparative Education
Research Centre.

Mathias, J., Bruce, M., & Newton, D. P. (2013) Challenging the Western stereotype :
Do Chinese international foundation students learn by rote?. Research in
Post-compulsory Education, 18(3), 221-238.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students' learning
style preferences. RELC Journal, 21(1), 29-47.

Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miglietti, C. L., & Strange, C. C. (1998). Learning styles, classroom environment

preferences, teaching styles, and remedial course outcomes for underprepared
adults at a two-year college. Community College Review, 26(1), 1-19.

Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia – Managing for success 2008-2012.

Retrieved from
[Link]
/Ka-Hikitia/[Link]

Ministry of Education. (2013). Ka Hikitia – Accelerating success 2013-2017.

Retrieved from
[Link]
/Ka-Hikitia/[Link]

Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: A Hong Kong perspective. Australian

Universities Review, 30(2), 43-44.

Myers, I. B., & Myers P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type.
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Myers, L B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Services.

  296
Nelson, G. (1995). Cultural differences in learning styles. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning
styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 3-18). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

O’Faithaigh, M. (2000). The social-interaction learning styles of Irish adult learners:

Some empirical findings. U.S. Department of Education. ERIC.

O'Brien, L. (1990). Learning channel preference checklist. Rockville, MD: Specific

Diagnostic Services.

Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching
styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 22(1), 1-21.

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and

relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
41, 271-277.

Oxford, R. L., & Anderson, N. (1995). State of the art: A crosscultural view of
language learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, 201-215.

Oxford, R. L., & Lavine, R. Z. (1992). Teacher-student style wars in the language
classroom: Research insights and suggestions. ADFL Bulletin, 23, 38-45.

Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. Z. (1991). Styles wars: Teacher-student style
conflicts in the language classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the
1990s for college foreign language programs (pp. 1-25). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.

Oxford, R., Holloway, M., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992). Language learning styles:
Research and practical considerations for teaching in the multicultural tertiary
ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20, 439-456.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a

messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Parshnig, B. (2005). Learning styles vs. multiple intelligences: Two concepts for
enhancing teaching and learning. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.

Peng, L. L. (2002). Applying learning style in instructional strategies. CDTL Brief,

5(7). Retrieved from [Link]

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International

  297
 Universities Press.

Pierson, H. D. (1996). Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong
Chinese context.’ In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson
(Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 49-58). Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.

Postiglione, G. A. (2001). Globalization and professional autonomy: The academy in

Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing. Education and Society, 19(1), 23-43.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The
experience in higher education. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open
University Press.

Rao, N., & Sachs, J. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 59, 1016–1029.

Rayner, S. G. (2000). Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning:

Profiling learning performance. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.),
International perspectives on individual differences, Volume 1: Cognitive styles
(pp. 115-177). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Razak, N.A., Ahmad, F., & Shah, N.P. (2007). Perceived and preferred teaching
styles (methods) of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) students. e-BANGI:
Jurnal Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, 2(2). Retrieved from
[Link]

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

Reid, J. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language

classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Reid, J., Vicioso, M.V.M., Gedeon, É., Takacs, K., & Korotkikh, Z. (1998). Teachers
as perceptual learning styles researchers. In J. M. Reid (Eds.), Understanding
learning styles in the second language acquisition (pp.15-26). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Reinert, H. (1976). One picture is worth a thousand words? Not necessarily. Modern
Language Journal, 60, 160-168.

Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28(2),

115-133.

Rezler, A. G., & Rezmovic, V. (1981). The learning preference inventory. Journal of
Applied Health, 10, 28-34.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H., (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics. London, England: Longman.

  298
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration.
Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 193-215.

Riechmann, S. W., & Grasha, A. F. (1974). A rational approach to developing and

assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument.
Journal of Psychology, 87, 213-223.

Robinson, R. D. (1979). Helping adults learn and change. Milwaukee, WI:

Omnibook.

Rogers, C. (1982). Freedom to learn in the eighties. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Romanowski, M. (2006). A changing nation: Issues facing Chinese teachers. Kappa

Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 76-81.

Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students.
In J. Reid (Ed.), Language learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 118–
125). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Ryan, K. (1970). Don’t smile until Christmas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Salem, G. R. (2001). Instructors’ and students’ antecedents and contexts: Their

influence on the English proficiency of college freshmen (Unpublished doctoral
thesis). Saint Mary’s University, Bayombong, Philippines.

Samida, D. K. (n.d.). Language learning strategies. Retrieved from

[Link]

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: Two sides of a

story. Higher Education Research and Development, 6(2), 121-133.

Scarcella, R & Oxford, R (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in
the communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F.D., & Ramaniah, H. (1977). Development of a self-report

inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Severiens, S., & ten Dam, G. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in
learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 79-93.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.

Singleton, J. (1991). The spirit of gambruu. In A. E. Finkelstein, A. E. Imamura, & J.

J. Tobin (Eds.), Transcending stereotypes: Discovering Japanese culture and

  299
 education (pp. 20-25). Yarmouth, England: Intercultural Press.

Skolnik, M. L. (2004). The relationship of the community college to other providers

of postsecondary and adult education in Canada and implications for policy.
Higher Education Perspectives, 1(1), 36-58. Retrieved from
[Link]
0CC%[Link]

Slaats’, A., Lodewijks H., & Van der Sanden, J. (2012). Learning styles in secondary
vocational education: Disciplinary differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(5),
475–492.

Smith, M., & Mutch, C. (2010). Promoting success for Maori learners in New
Zealand. Retrieved from
[Link]

Smith, W., Sekar, S., & Townsend, K. (2002). The impact of surface and reflective
teaching and learning on student academic success. In M. Valcke, & D. Gombeir
(Eds.), Learning styles: Reliability and validity. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 7th Annual European Learning Styles Information Network
Conference, 26-28 June, Ghent: University of Ghent, pp. 407–418.

Soliven, S. R. (2003). Teaching styles of high school physics teachers. Retrieved from
[Link]

Soloman, D., & Kendall, A. (1976) Individual characteristics and children’s

performance in “open” and “traditional” classroom settings. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 613-625.

Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual learning style preferences of

postsecondary students of English as a second language. In J. Reid (Ed.),
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 108-117). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.

Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the interface

between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis (Eds.),
Personality and intelligence (pp.169-187). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Strass, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and
procedure for development grounded theory. London, England: Sage.

Strauss, V. (2013). Howard Gardner: “Multiple intelligences” are not “learning

styles”. Retrieved from
[Link]
dner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/

Su, D. (1995). A study of English learning strategies and styles of Chinese university

  300
 students in relation to their cultural beliefs and beliefs about learning English
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia.

Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational experience. American

Psychologist, 45(8), 913-920.

Tamir, P., & Cohen, S. (1980). Factors that correlate with cognitive preferences of
medical school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 67-74.

Tan, J. (2011). Revisiting the Chinese learner: Changing contexts, changing education.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(2), 227-228.

Tang, C. (1996). Collaborative learning: The latent dimension in Chinese students'

learning. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural,
psychological and contextual influence (pp. 183-204). Hong Kong: CERC &
ACER.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2010). Are Asian international medical students just rote
learners? Theory and Practice, 15(3), 369-377.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2015). C G Jungs theory. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link]

Trang, T. T. T., & Baldauf, R. N. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to

English language learning – The case of Vietnamese students. The Journal of
Asia TEFL, 4(1), 79-105.

Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity

in business. London, England: Nicholas Brealey.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Learning how to teach ESL writing. In D. Freeman & J. C.

Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 97−119).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Bunton, D. (2000). The discourse and attitudes of English language
teachers in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 19(3), 287-303.

Tuan, L. T. (2011). EFL learners’ learning styles and their attributes. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 299- 320.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centeredness as language education. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.

VanderStoep, S. W., Pintrich P. R., & Fagerlin, A. (1996). Disciplinary differences in

self regulated learning in college students. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21, 345- 362.

  301
Vaughan, G. B. (2006). The community college story. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.

Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (1999). Consistency and

variability of learning strategies in different university courses. Higher
Education, 37, 1-21.

Vermunt, J. & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In R. J. Simons, J.

van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 209 – 225). Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257–280.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross cultural perspective. School.

Leadership & Management, 20(2), 161-173.

Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university
students: investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393.

Willing, K. (1987). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Sydney, Australia:

NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.

Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide, Australia:

National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Winter, S. (1996). Peer tutoring and learning outcomes. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs.
(Eds.). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influence (pp.
221-241). Hong Kong: CERC & ACER.

Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R.C. (2001). The construct validity of one
learning styles instrument. System, 29, 385-203.

Wintergerst, A., DeCapua, A., & Verna, M. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style
modalities for EFL students. System, 31, 85-106

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971). A manual for the embedded
figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Witkins, H. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New

York, NY: Wiley.

Wong, J. K. K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students

culturally or contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166.

Xiao, L. (2006). Bridging the gap between teaching styles and learning styles: A

  302
 cross-cultural perspective. TESL-EJ, 10(3), 1-15. Retrieved from
[Link]

Yang, Y. B. (2004). Characteristics of good English learners – urban key senior

secondary school students learning English in Yunnan – China (Unpublished
master’s thesis). La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Yu, T, M. (2012). The roles of teachers’ teaching behavior in students’ learning styles
and academic achievement (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of
Hong Kong.

Zhan, S., Bray, M., Wang, D., Lykins, C., & Kwo, O. (2013). The effectiveness of
private tutoring: Students’ perceptions in comparison with mainstream schooling
in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 495-509.

Zhang, J., & Evans, M. S. (2013). An empirical study on the multidimensional

learning styles on Chinese EFL students. Retrieved from
[Link]

Zhou, M. (2011). Learning styles and teaching styles in college English teaching.
International Education Studies, 4(1). Retrieved from
[Link]

  303
 Appendices

Appendix A: Information letter and consent form for students

Appendix B: Information letter and consent form for teachers
Appendix C: Learning style preference questionnaire for students
Appendix D: Teaching style preference questionnaire for teachers
Appendix E: Prompt interview questions for students
Appendix F: Prompt interview questions for teachers
Appendix G: Reliability test results of learning style preference questionnaire for
students
Appendix H: Means, standard deviations, and the one-way ANOVA results of
students’ learning style preferences according to different factors

  304
 Appendix A: Information letter and consent form for students

Tel.: +852 6011 2822 (Hong Kong)

+64 3 364 2987 (New Zealand)
Email: [Link]@[Link]

15 January, 2012

A Study of English Language Learning Styles and Teaching Style Preferences of

Hong Kong Community College Students and Teachers
in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Contexts

Information Sheet for Students

I am a Doctor of Philosophy candidate at the College of Education, University of Canterbury, New

Zealand. I am currently conducting a research study on Hong Kong community college students and
teachers’ English language learning style and teaching style preferences in English for Academic Purposes
contexts. I would like to invite you to participate in this study in order to understand more about Hong Kong
community college students’ English language learning style preferences.

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be invited to complete a questionnaire about your
learning style preferences in EAP contexts, which will take less than 15 minutes. In addition, I would like to
invite you to attend a 30-minute semi-structured group interview. The group interview will be held in the
College during non-instructional time and will involve five or six students from your class. All participants
of the interview will be asked to treat what is shared in confidence. The interview will be tape recorded for
transcription purposes and further data checking only.

The participation of this study is voluntary. If you participate, you have the right to withdraw from the
study at any time without penalty. If you withdraw, I will do my best to remove any information relating to
you, providing this is practically achievable. I will make sure that the information provide to me will be
treated with the utmost confidentiality and anonymity, and no identifying information on your institution or
individuals will be written in reports or publications. All the collected data will be securely stored in
password protected facilities for three years following the study and will then be destroyed.

The research results will be useful for the contribution to the research field of English language
education at community college level and will provide valuable information for curriculum design and
teacher training. The results will also be reported internationally at conferences and in English language
teaching journals. All participants will receive a report on the study.

The research study has received ethical approval from the University of Canterbury Educational
Research Ethics Committee. If concerns arise about this aspect of my work, please contact me (details
above), or my thesis supervisor, Prof. Garry Hornby ([Link]@[Link]). If you have a
complaint about the study, please contact the Chair, Educational Research Human Ethics Committee,
University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch (human-ethics@[Link]).

If you agree to participate in this research, please complete the attached consent form and return it to
me in the envelope provided by (Day/Month).

I am looking forward to working with you and thank you in advance for your contributions.

Heidi Wong
  305
University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. [Link]
 Appendix A (Continued)

A Study of English Language Learning Styles and Teaching Style Preferences of

Hong Kong Community College Students and Teachers
in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Contexts

Consent Form for Students

I have read the information sheet and understand what will be required of me if I participate in the research.

I have been given a full explanation of this project and have been given opportunity to ask questions.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may withdraw at any stage without penalty.

I understand that any information or opinions I provide will be kept confidential to the researcher and that any
published or reported results will not identify me and my College.

I understand that all data collected for the study will be kept in locked and secure facilities at the University of
Canterbury and/or in password protected electronic form and will be destroyed after three years.

I understand that I can receive a copy of the report on the findings of the study.

I understand that I can get more information about this project from the researcher and that I can contact the
University of Canterbury Ethics Committee if I have any complaints about the research.

By signing below, I agree / disagree* to participate in this research project.

I agree/disagree* to complete the attached self-reported questionnaire.

I agree/disagree* to attend a 30-minute semi-structured group interview with five or six students in the context of
this study. I understand that the group interview will be tape-recorded for transcription purposes and further data
checking only, and all participants of the interview will be asked to treat what is shared in confidence.

*Please delete as appropriate.

Name: _______________________________ Signature: _________________________________

Date: __________________ Email address for report (Optional): ___________________________

If you agree to attend a sharing session, please leave your contact number.

Contact No.: _______________________

Please return this consent form in the sealed envelope to your class teacher. Thank you.

  306

University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. [Link]
 Appendix B: Information letter and consent form for teachers

Tel.: +852 6011 2822 (Hong Kong)

+64 3 364 2987 (New Zealand)
Email: [Link]@[Link]

15 January, 2012

A Study of English Language Learning Styles and Teaching Style Preferences of

Hong Kong Community College Students and Teachers
in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Contexts

Information Sheet for Teachers

I am a Doctor of Philosophy candidate at the College of Education, University of Canterbury, New

Zealand. I am currently conducting a research study on Hong Kong community college students and
teachers’ English language learning style and teaching style preferences in English for Academic Purposes
contexts. I would like to invite you to participate in this study in order to understand more about Hong Kong
community college teachers’ teaching style preferences in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts.

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be invited to complete a questionnaire about your
teaching style preferences in EAP contexts, which will take less than 15 minutes. In addition, I would like to
invite you to attend a 30-minute semi-structured group interview. The interview will be held in the College
during non-instructional time and will involve three or four of your colleagues. All participants of the
interview will be asked to treat what is shared in confidence. It will be tape recorded for transcription
purposes and further data checking only.

The participation of this study is voluntary. If you participate, you have the right to withdraw from the
study at any time. If you withdraw, I will do my best to remove any information relating to you, providing
this is practically achievable. I will make sure that the information provide to me will be treated with the
utmost confidentiality and anonymity, and no identifying information on your institution or individuals will
be written in reports or publications. All the collected data will be securely stored in password protected
facilities for three years following the study and will then be destroyed.

The research results will be useful for the contribution to the research field of English language
education at community college level and will provide valuable information for curriculum design and
teacher training. The results will also be reported internationally at conferences and in English language
teaching journals. All participants will receive a report on the study.

The research study has received ethical approval from the University of Canterbury Educational
Research Ethics Committee. If concerns arise about this aspect of my work, please contact me (details
above), or my thesis supervisor, Prof. Garry Hornby ([Link]@[Link]). If you have a
complaint about the study, please contact the Chair, Educational Research Human Ethics Committee,
University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch (human-ethics@[Link]).

If you agree to participate in this research, please complete the attached consent form and return it to
me in the envelope provided by (Day/Month).

I am looking forward to working with you and thank you in advance for your contributions.

Heidi Wong

  307
University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. [Link]
 Appendix  B  (Continued)    

A Study of English Language Learning Styles and Teaching Style Preferences of

Hong Kong Community College Students and Teachers
in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Contexts

Consent Form for Teachers

I have read the information sheet and understand what will be required of me if I participate in the
research.

I have been given a full explanation of this project and have been given opportunity to ask
questions.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may withdraw at any stage without penalty.

I understand that any information or opinions I provide will be kept confidential to the researcher
and that any published or reported results will not identify me and my College.

I understand that all data collected for the study will be kept in locked and secure facilities at the
University of Canterbury and/or in password protected electronic form and will be destroyed after
three years.

I understand that I can receive a copy of the report on the findings of the study.

I understand that I can get more information about this project from the researcher and that I can
contact the University of Canterbury Ethics Committee if I have any complaints about the research.

By signing below, I agree / disagree* to participate in this research project.

I agree/disagree* to complete the attached self-reported questionnaire.

I agree/disagree* to attend a 30-minute semi-structured group interview with three or four teachers
in the context of this study. I understand that the group interview will be tape-recorded for
transcription purposes and further data checking only, and all participants of the interview will be
asked to treat what is shared in confidence.

*Please delete as appropriate.

Name: _______________________________ Signature: _________________________________

Date: __________________ Email address for report (Optional): ___________________________

If you agree to attend a sharing session, please leave your contact number.

Contact No.: _______________________

Thank you.

  308
Appendix C: Learning style preference questionnaire for students  
College of Education

Telephone: (+852) 6011-2822

Email: [Link]@[Link]

Language Learning Style Preference Questionnaire

Gender: *Male / Female (*Please delete as appropriate.)

Programme: * Associate Degree / Higher Diploma

Year of Study: *1 / 2 / 3 / 4

Major Field (e.g. Arts, IT, Social Sciences):

___________________________________

Place of Origin:
l Hong Kong / Mainland China / Others (Please specify: ___________________)
l
First Language: _______________________

Second Language: _______________________

Where did you receive secondary education?

¨ English-medium (EMI) secondary school in Hong Kong
¨ Chinese-medium (CMI) secondary school in Hong Kong
¨ International school in Hong Kong ¨ International school in China
¨ Local secondary school in China / Taiwan
¨ Local secondary school in English-speaking countries
¨ Other(s) (Please specify:
___________________________________________________)

What was your highest educational qualification before the admission to the
Associate Degree / Higher Diploma programme?
¨ Form Seven / Grade 13 ¨ Form Six / Grade 12 ¨ Form Five / Grade 11
¨ Pre-Associate Degree / Foundation Diploma
¨ Other (Please specify:
_______________________________________________)

  309
 Directions
This questionnaire has been designed to identify the way(s) you learn best – the way(s) you
prefer to learn.

Read each statement on the following pages. Please respond to the statements AS THEY
APPLY TO YOUR STUDY OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES. This questionnaire
use the following rating scale when responding to each item:
 
6 5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Somewhat Somewhat Disagree Strongly
agree Agree Disagree Disagree

For example, if you agree with the statement, please circle

6 … 4 3 2 1

Please respond to each statement quickly, without too much thought. Try not to change your
responses after you choose them.

1. I learn best by reading what the teacher writes on the board 6 5 4 3 2 1

and/or PowerPoint presentations.

2. I learn better in class with oral instructions. 6 5 4 3 2 1

3. I prefer to learn by doing practical work in class. (E.g. Practise 6 5 4 3 2 1

writing a good introduction in an academic writing lesson.)

4. I learn more when I can make something by myself. (E.g. 6 5 4 3 2 1

Giving a poster presentation)

5. I like it when I work with other students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

6. I learn best by working on individual tasks. 6 5 4 3 2 1

7. I prefer to solve problems by myself first (instead of relying on 6 5 4 3 2 1

teacher’s explanation).

8. I prefer teachers to lecture most of the time. 6 5 4 3 2 1

9. I like class activities that allow me to analyse problems. 6 5 4 3 2 1

10. I like teachers providing me with lots of examples to illustrate 6 5 4 3 2 1

language concepts (e.g. grammar and vocabulary).

  310
11. When I read instructions, I learn them better. 6 5 4 3 2 1

12. When I do things in class, I learn better. (E.g. Jotting down 6 5 4 3 2 1

vocabulary meanings, instead of reading handouts given by
teachers only.)

13. I learn more when I make something for a class project. (E.g. 6 5 4 3 2 1
Collecting and summarising readings for a class project.)

14. I learn more when I study with other students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

15. When I work alone, I learn better. 6 5 4 3 2 1

16. I prefer to participate in activities that allow me to explore 6 5 4 3 2 1

topics which I am interested in.

17. I learn better if teachers prepare lots of handouts for me. 6 5 4 3 2 1

18. I prefer teachers to give me models of successful work from 6 5 4 3 2 1

other people when doing assignments.

19. I remember things I have heard in class better than things I 6 5 4 3 2 1

have read.

20. I enjoy learning in class by doing practical work. (E.g. 6 5 4 3 2 1

Practising how to cite an article in class, instead of reading
referencing manuals given by the teachers.)

21. I like teachers explaining language concepts by making 6 5 4 3 2 1

drawings (e.g. concept mapping / mindmapping).

22. I prefer teachers to give me lots of guidelines and reference 6 5 4 3 2 1

materials when giving assignments.

23. I prefer teachers to give me opportunities to ask and respond 6 5 4 3 2 1

to questions.

24. I learn better if someone can show me how I can apply 6 5 4 3 2 1

different language concepts in different situations.

25. I think I understand language concepts (e.g. grammar) better 6 5 4 3 2 1

with written notes than oral explanation.

26. I learn better in class when listening to a lecture (instead of 6 5 4 3 2 1

reading a book).

27. I understand things better in class when I participate in active 6 5 4 3 2 1

  311
 activities (e.g. role-playing).

28. When I construct something, I remember what I have learned 6 5 4 3 2 1

better. (E.g. Writing my own notes for revision.)

29. I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three 6 5 4 3 2 1

classmates.

30. I think having personal consultation with my lecturers helps me 6 5 4 3 2 1

understand new concepts or things that I do not understand.

31. When I am interested in a topic, I prefer finding out more about 6 5 4 3 2 1

it on my own (instead of relying on teachers).

32. I learn better when I can evaluate on other people’s work (e.g. 6 5 4 3 2 1
Evaluating on other people’s essays in an academic writing
lesson).

33. I learn more by reading textbooks than by listening to lectures. 6 5 4 3 2 1

34. I learn better with instructions that allow me to hear what I am 6 5 4 3 2 1

learning.

35. I learn better when I study with others. 6 5 4 3 2 1

36. I prefer to work by myself. 6 5 4 3 2 1

37. When I don’t understand something, I prefer figuring it out for 6 5 4 3 2 1

myself first.

38. I like teachers spending most of the time on explanation 6 5 4 3 2 1

when presenting new concepts in class.

39. I prefer teachers to allow me to analyze language concepts 6 5 4 3 2 1

(e.g. grammar and vocabulary) through giving examples.

40. I understand better if someone can show me how to do things 6 5 4 3 2 1

or demonstrate ways of thinking. (E.g. Showing how to work
out the answers in class.”)

Thank you for your contribution.

  312
Appendix D: Teaching style preference questionnaire for teachers  
College of Education

  Telephone: (+852) 6011-2822

Email: [Link]@[Link]

Language Teaching Style Preference Questionnaire

Gender: *Male / Female (*Please delete as appropriate.)

Place of Origin: * Hong Kong / Other (Please specify: ___________________)
First Language: _________________ Second Language (Optional):
_____________________

Where did you receive secondary education?

¨ Hong Kong
¨ Hong Kong and other(s) (Please specify:
__________________________________________)
¨ Other(s) (Please specify:
_______________________________________________________)

What is the highest academic qualification that you have attained?

¨ Bachelor’s Degree ¨ Master’s Degree
¨ Doctoral Degree ¨ Other (Please specify:
__________________________________)

Did you receive professional training on teaching English as a second/foreign

language?
¨ Yes (Please specify:
_________________________________________________________)
¨ No

How long have you been working as an English as a second/foreign language

teacher?
¨ Less than 2 years ¨ 2 – 5 years ¨ 6 – 10 years ¨ 11 – 15 years
¨ 16 – 20 years ¨ More than 20 years

How many years have you taught English as a second/foreign language at community
college level?
¨ Less than 2 years ¨ 2 – 5 years ¨ 6 – 10 years ¨ More than 10 years

How many years have you taught English for Academic Purposes at community
college level?
¨ Less than 2 years ¨ 2 – 5 years ¨ 6 – 10 years ¨ More than 10 years

  313
 Directions
This questionnaire has been designed to identify the way(s) you prefer to teach English for
Academic Purposes.

Read each statement on the following pages. Please respond to the statements AS THEY APPLY TO
YOUR TEACHING OF ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES.

This questionnaire uses the following rating scale when responding to each item:
 
6 5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Somewhat Somewhat Disagree Strongly
agree Agree Disagree Disagree

For example, if you agree with the statement, please circle

6 … 4 3 2 1

Please respond to each statement quickly, without too much thought. Try not to change your
responses after you chosen them.

1. I think students learn best by reading what I write on the board 6 5 4 3 2 1

and/or PowerPoint presentations.

2. Students learn better in class with oral instructions. 6 5 4 3 2 1

3. I like giving students practical work in class. (E.g. Practise writing a 6 5 4 3 2 1

good introduction in an academic writing lesson.)

4. I think students learn more by making something by themselves. 6 5 4 3 2 1

(E.g. Giving a poster presentation.)

5. I try to encourage students to work with each other. 6 5 4 3 2 1

6. I think students learn best by working on individual tasks. 6 5 4 3 2 1

7. I encourage students to solve problems by themselves first 6 5 4 3 2 1

(instead of relying on teacher’s explanation).

8. Lecturing is a significant part of how I teach each lesson. 6 5 4 3 2 1

9. I like class activities which allow students to analyse problems. 6 5 4 3 2 1

10. I like providing students with lots of examples to illustrate language 6 5 4 3 2 1

  314
 concepts (e.g. grammar and vocabulary).

11. I think students learn better with written instructions. 6 5 4 3 2 1

12. I think students learn better if they do things in class. (E.g. Jotting 6 5 4 3 2 1
down vocabulary meanings, instead of relying on handouts given
by teachers.)

13. Students learn more when they make something for a class 6 5 4 3 2 1
project. (E.g. Collecting and summarising readings for a class
project.)

14. Students learn more when they study with other students. 6 5 4 3 2 1

15. Students learn better when they work alone. 6 5 4 3 2 1

16. I like designing activities that allow students to explore topics which 6 5 4 3 2 1
they are interested in.

17. I think students learn better if I prepare lots of handouts for them. 6 5 4 3 2 1

18. When possible, I give students models of successful work from 6 5 4 3 2 1

other people when giving assignments.

19. I think students remember things they have heard in class better 6 5 4 3 2 1
than things they have read.

20. I think students enjoy learning in class by doing practical work. 6 5 4 3 2 1

(E.g. Practising how to cite an article in class, instead of reading
referencing manuals given by the teachers.)

21. When possible, I explain language concepts by making drawings 6 5 4 3 2 1

(e.g. concept mapping / mindmapping).

22. I prefer to give students lots of guidelines and reference materials 6 5 4 3 2 1

when giving assignments.

23. I prefer to give students opportunities to ask and respond to 6 5 4 3 2 1

questions.

24. I like showing students how they can apply different language 6 5 4 3 2 1
concepts in different situations.

25. I think students understand language concepts (e.g. grammar and 6 5 4 3 2 1

vocabulary) better with written notes than oral explanation.

26. I think students learn better when listening to a lecture (instead of 6 5 4 3 2 1

reading a book).

  315
27. I think students understand things better in class with active 6 5 4 3 2 1
activities (e.g. role-playing).

28. I think asking students to construct something helps them 6 5 4 3 2 1

remember things better. (E.g. Writing and organising their own
notes for revision.)

29. Students enjoy working on assignments with two or three 6 5 4 3 2 1

classmates.

30. I think having personal consultation with my students helps them 6 5 4 3 2 1

understand new concepts or things that they do not understand.

31. I encourage students to find out more about a topic which they are 6 5 4 3 2 1
interested in on their own first, instead of relying on teachers.

32. Students learn better when they can evaluate on other people’s 6 5 4 3 2 1
work. (E.g. Evaluating on other students’ essays in an academic
writing lesson.)

33. I think students learn more by reading textbooks than by listening 6 5 4 3 2 1

to lectures.

34. I think students learn better with instructions that allow them to 6 5 4 3 2 1
hear what they are learning.

35. I think students learn better when they study with others. 6 5 4 3 2 1

36. I think students prefer to work by themselves. 6 5 4 3 2 1

37. When students don’t understand something, I try to encourage 6 5 4 3 2 1

them to figure it out for themselves first.

38. In class, I like spending most of the time on explanation when 6 5 4 3 2 1

presenting new concepts.

39. I encourage students to analyze language concepts (e.g. grammar 6 5 4 3 2 1

and vocabulary) through giving examples.

40. I think students learn better if I can show them how to do things or 6 5 4 3 2 1
demonstrate ways of thinking. (E.g. Showing how to work out the
answers in class.)

Thank you for your contribution!

  316
Appendix E: Prompt interview questions for students

1. To what extent do you think your questionnaire results reflect your preferred learning
styles in EAP contexts?
2. Do you think your learning experience / background contributes to your English language
learning style preferences? If yes, how?
3. Do you think the Chinese / Hong Kong culture contributes to your English language
learning style preferences? If yes, how?
4. What other possible factors may affect your language learning style preferences?
5. To what extent do you think the match/mismatch between your learning style preferences
and your instructors’ teaching styles affects your language learning in EAP contexts?
6. Other related questions.

  317
Appendix F: Prompt interview questions for teachers

1. To what extent do you think your questionnaire results reflect your preferred teaching
styles in EAP contexts?
2. Do you think your academic experience / background contributes to your English
language teaching styles? If yes, how?
3. Do you think your own culture contributes to your English language teaching styles? If
yes, how?
4. What other possible factors may affect your English language teaching styles?
5. To what extent do you think the match/mismatch between your teaching styles and your
students’ learning styles affects your students’ language learning in EAP contexts?
6. Other related questions.

  318
Appendix G:
Reliability test results of learning style preference questionnaire for students

G.1 Visual
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.558 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q1 12.2716 4.145 .330 .499

Q11 12.2009 3.900 .364 .471

Q25 12.2873 3.576 .384 .451

Q33 12.7284 3.563 .306 .527

G.2 Auditory
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.634 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q2 12.5840 4.240 .346 .610

Q19 12.5981 3.332 .464 .528

Q26 12.5589 3.483 .499 .500

Q34 12.5432 4.264 .356 .604

  319
G.3 Kinaesthetic
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.628 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q3 12.6703 4.020 .402 .562

Q12 12.5102 4.115 .411 .556

Q20 12.7473 3.834 .460 .520

Q27 12.7708 3.944 .362 .595

G.4 Tactile
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.583 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q4 12.9843 3.616 .382 .498

Q13 13.1900 3.459 .401 .482

Q21 13.0000 3.682 .312 .554

Q28 12.9796 3.743 .366 .511

  320
G.5 Individual
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.520 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q6 12.4804 3.401 .424 .349

Q15 12.7473 3.252 .323 .438

Q19 12.5573 3.889 .226 .519

Q30 12.4568 3.871 .279 .474

G.6 Group
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.749 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q5 12.5699 4.642 .575 .673

Q14 12.5557 4.980 .551 .689

Q29 12.7049 4.567 .540 .695

Q35 12.6986 4.912 .514 .707

  321
G.7 Independent
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.665 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q7 13.2873 3.903 .422 .616

Q16 13.2590 4.126 .443 .601

Q31 13.2292 4.095 .408 .624

Q37 13.3721 3.721 .515 .550

G.8 Dependent
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.619 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q8 13.1774 4.118 .372 .569

Q17 12.9545 3.795 .439 .518

Q22 12.7316 4.256 .377 .564

Q38 12.8289 4.230 .409 .543

  322
G.9 Teacher-modeling
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.678 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q10 13.7363 3.886 .456 .615

Q18 13.8571 3.770 .464 .610

Q24 13.9137 4.129 .434 .629

Q40 13.8823 3.830 .486 .595

G.10 Analytic
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.697 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item

Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Deleted

Q9 13.1978 4.184 .358 .711

Q23 13.0816 3.723 .570 .576

Q32 13.2355 3.929 .503 .619

Q39 13.0298 3.891 .506 .617

  323
 Appendix H: Means, standard deviations, and the one-way ANOVA results of students’
learning style preferences according to different factors
 
 
H.1.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to gender

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Visual Male 309 16.7346 2.55094 5.00 24.00

Female 328 16.4329 2.37760 5.00 22.00

Total 637 16.5793 2.46588 5.00 24.00

Auditory Male 309 17.2816 2.31771 9.00 24.00

Female 328 17.3659 2.14326 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3250 2.22823 9.00 24.00

Tactile Male 309 17.6634 2.36107 11.00 24.00

Female 328 17.1433 2.44215 10.00 23.00

Total 637 17.3956 2.41533 10.00 24.00

Kinaesthetic Male 309 16.9709 2.62279 8.00 24.00

Female 328 16.8323 2.39761 8.00 23.00

Total 637 16.8995 2.50834 8.00 24.00

Group Male 309 17.0485 2.85031 7.00 24.00

Female 328 16.6494 2.73983 5.00 24.00

Total 637 16.8430 2.79889 5.00 24.00

Individual Male 309 16.7540 2.47671 9.00 24.00

Female 328 16.7409 2.22783 10.00 24.00

Total 637 16.7473 2.35000 9.00 24.00

Independent Male 309 18.0421 2.57262 11.00 24.00

Female 328 17.4085 2.42770 12.00 24.00

Total 637 17.7159 2.51710 11.00 24.00

Dependent Male 309 17.1456 2.65582 4.00 24.00

Female 328 17.3110 2.43338 9.00 24.00

Total 637 17.2308 2.54305 4.00 24.00

  324
 H.1.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Analytic Male 309 17.7379 2.61102 8.00 24.00

Female 328 17.3354 2.44143 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.5306 2.53114 8.00 24.00

Teacher-modeling Male 309 18.4595 2.64375 10.00 24.00

Female 328 18.4665 2.36800 11.00 24.00

Total 637 18.4631 2.50358 10.00 24.00

H.1.2 ANOVA for gender and learning style preferences

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Visual Between Groups 14.483 1 14.483 2.387 .123

Within Groups 3852.764 635 6.067

Total 3867.246 636

Auditory Between Groups 1.131 1 1.131 .227 .634

Within Groups 3156.602 635 4.971

Total 3157.733 636

Tactile Between Groups 43.046 1 43.046 7.454 .007*

Within Groups 3667.262 635 5.775

Total 3710.308 636

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 3.055 1 3.055 .485 .486

Within Groups 3998.515 635 6.297

Total 4001.570 636

Group Between Groups 25.350 1 25.350 3.247 .072

Within Groups 4956.952 635 7.806

Total 4982.301 636

  325
 H.1.2 (Continued)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Individual Between Groups .028 1 .028 .005 .944

Within Groups 3512.280 635 5.531

Total 3512.308 636

Independent Between Groups 63.861 1 63.861 10.226 .001*

Within Groups 3965.709 635 6.245

Total 4029.570 636

Dependent Between Groups 4.350 1 4.350 .672 .413

Within Groups 4108.727 635 6.470

Total 4113.077 636

Analytic Between Groups 25.776 1 25.776 4.043 .045*

Within Groups 4048.877 635 6.376

Total 4074.653 636

Teacher-modeling Between Groups .008 1 .008 .001 .972

Within Groups 3986.375 635 6.278

Total 3986.383 636

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

 
H.2.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to year of
study

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Visual Year 1 458 16.5721 2.36130 8.00 24.00

Year 2 179 16.5978 2.72219 5.00 23.00

Total 637 16.5793 2.46588 5.00 24.00

Auditory Year 1 458 17.1834 2.26601 9.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.6872 2.09129 11.00 23.00

Total 637 17.3250 2.22823 9.00 24.00

  326
H.2.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Tactile Year 1 458 17.2183 2.38162 10.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.8492 2.44826 11.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3956 2.41533 10.00 24.00

Kinaesthetic Year 1 458 16.7860 2.51082 8.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.1899 2.48540 12.00 24.00

Total 637 16.8995 2.50834 8.00 24.00

Group Year 1 458 16.8668 2.83263 7.00 24.00

Year 2 179 16.7821 2.71751 5.00 23.00

Total 637 16.8430 2.79889 5.00 24.00

Individual Year 1 458 16.6441 2.32623 19.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.0112 2.39613 9.00 24.00

Total 637 16.7473 2.35000 9.00 24.00

Independent Year 1 458 17.6288 2.57105 11.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.9385 2.36587 11.00 24.00

Total 637 17.7159 2.51710 11.00 24.00

Dependent Year 1 458 17.1965 2.56910 4.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.3184 2.48009 9.00 23.00

Total 637 17.2308 2.54305 4.00 24.00

Analytic Year 1 458 17.4083 2.54098 10.00 24.00

Year 2 179 17.8436 2.48549 8.00 24.00

Total 637 17.5306 2.53114 8.00 24.00

Teacher-modeling Year 1 458 18.3057 2.49253 10.00 24.00

Year 2 179 18.8659 2.49357 10.00 24.00

Total 637 18.4631 2.50358 10.00 24.00

  327
H.2.2 ANOVA for year of study and learning style preferences

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Visual Between Groups .085 1 .085 .014 .906

Within Groups 3867.161 635 6.090

Total 3867.246 636

Auditory Between Groups 32.659 1 32.659 6.636 .010*

Within Groups 3125.074 635 4.921

Total 3157.733 636

Tactile Between Groups 51.214 1 51.214 8.888 .003*

Within Groups 3659.093 635 5.762

Total 3710.308 636

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 20.997 1 20.997 3.350 .068

Within Groups 3980.572 635 6.269

Total 4001.570 636

Group Between Groups .923 1 .923 .118 .732

Within Groups 4981.378 635 7.845

Total 4982.301 636

Individual Between Groups 17.341 1 17.341 3.151 .076

Within Groups 3494.967 635 5.504

Total 3512.308 636

Independent Between Groups 12.346 1 12.346 1.952 .163

Within Groups 4017.224 635 6.326

Total 4029.570 636

Dependent Between Groups 1.913 1 1.913 .296 .587

Within Groups 4111.164 635 6.474

Total 4113.077 636

`Analytic Between Groups 24.384 1 24.384 3.823 .050*

Within Groups 4050.269 635 6.378

Total 4074.653 636

  328
H.2.2 (Continued)
Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Teacher-modeling Between Groups 40.396 1 40.396 6.501 .011*

Within Groups 3945.987 635 6.214

Total 3986.383 636

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

 
H.3.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to type of
programme

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Visual Associate Degree 428 16.6121 2.41173 5.00 23.00

Higher Diploma 209 16.5120 2.57785 8.00 24.00

Total 637 16.5793 2.46588 5.00 24.00

Auditory Associate Degree 428 17.2991 2.25418 9.00 23.00

Higher Diploma 209 17.3780 2.17850 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3250 2.22823 9.00 24.00

Tactile Associate Degree 428 17.4650 2.35317 11.00 24.00

Higher Diploma 209 17.2536 2.53775 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3956 2.41533 10.00 24.00

Kinaesthetic Associate Degree 428 17.0771 2.38480 8.00 23.00

Higher Diploma 209 16.5359 2.71391 8.00 24.00

Total 637 16.8995 2.50834 8.00 24.00

Group Associate Degree 428 16.9229 2.70504 7.00 24.00

Higher Diploma 209 16.6794 2.98193 5.00 24.00

Total 637 16.8430 2.79889 5.00 24.00

Individual Associate Degree 428 16.8037 2.30035 9.00 24.00

Higher Diploma 209 16.6316 2.45011 10.00 24.00

Total 637 16.7473 2.35000 9.00 24.00

  329
 H.3.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Independent Associate Degree

Higher Diploma 209 17.3876 2.54536 12.00 24.00

Total 637 17.7159 2.51710 11.00 24.00

Dependent Associate Degree 428 17.2150 2.37385 9.00 23.00

Higher Diploma 209 17.2632 2.86434 4.00 24.00

Total 637 17.2308 2.54305 4.00 24.00

Analytic Associate Degree 428 17.5164 2.51501 8.00 24.00

Higher Diploma 209 17.5598 2.56970 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.5306 2.53114 8.00 24.00

Teacher_modeling Associate Degree 428 18.3084 2.60305 10.00 24.00

Higher Diploma 209 18.7799 2.25946 13.00 24.00

Total 637 18.4631 2.50358 10.00 24.00

H.3.2 ANOVA for type of programme and learning style preferences

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Visual Between Groups 1.410 1 1.410 .232 .631

Within Groups 3865.837 635 6.088

Total 3867.246 636

Auditory Between Groups .875 1 .875 .176 .675

Within Groups 3156.858 635 4.971

Total 3157.733 636

Tactile Between Groups 6.274 1 6.274 1.076 .300

Within Groups 3704.034 635 5.833

Total 3710.308 636

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 41.133 1 41.133 6.595 .010*

Within Groups 3960.436 635 6.237

Total 4001.570 636

  330
H.3.2 (Continued)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Group Between Groups 8.324 1 8.324 1.063 .303

Within Groups 4973.977 635 7.833

Total 4982.301 636

Individual Between Groups 4.162 1 4.162 .753 .386

Within Groups 3508.146 635 5.525

Total 3512.308 636

Independent Between Groups 33.525 1 33.525 5.327 .021*

Within Groups 3996.045 635 6.293

Total 4029.570 636

Dependent Between Groups .326 1 .326 .050 .822

Within Groups 4112.751 635 6.477

Total 4113.077 636

Analytic Between Groups .265 1 .265 .041 .839

Within Groups 4074.388 635 6.416

Total 4074.653 636

Teacher-modeling Between Groups 31.218 1 31.218 5.012 .026*

Within Groups 3955.165 635 6.229

Total 3986.383 636

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

 
H.4.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to major
field

Std.
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation

Visual Aviation 58 17.1379 2.34295 8.00 23.00

Business Administration 317 16.6593 2.35141 8.00 23.00

Dental Hygiene 21 14.6667 1.82574 10.00 17.00

Computing Studies 39 16.3846 2.08523 12.00 20.00

  331
 H.4.1 (Continued)

Std.
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation

Visual Life Sciences 56 16.7857 2.43246 11.00 22.00

Language and Humanities 87 16.5977 2.87515 5.00 23.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 16.5217 2.48394 12.00 22.00

Social Sciences 21 15.1429 2.65115 11.00 22.00

Engineering 15 17.1333 2.85023 14.00 24.00

Total 637 16.5793 2.46588 5.00 24.00

Auditory Aviation 58 17.6724 2.08914 13.00 22.00

Business Administration 317 17.1451 2.21568 9.00 22.00

Dental Hygiene 21 16.0952 2.30010 10.00 20.00

Computing Studies 39 16.9231 2.30999 12.00 21.00

Life Sciences 56 17.9286 2.57157 12.00 23.00

Language and Humanities 87 17.5747 1.98619 13.00 24.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 18.1739 1.74908 15.00 22.00

Social Sciences 21 17.3810 2.15583 11.00 21.00

Engineering 15 17.4667 2.50333 14.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3250 2.22823 9.00 24.00

Tactile Aviation 58 17.7069 2.12759 13.00 22.00

Business Administration 317 17.2713 2.35239 11.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 15.0476 1.82965 10.00 18.00

Computing Studies 39 16.7692 2.63040 11.00 22.00

Life Sciences 56 18.1607 2.54256 12.00 24.00

Language and Humanities 87 17.7241 2.41935 12.00 23.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 18.0000 2.27636 14.00 23.00

Social Sciences 21 17.8571 2.24245 14.00 22.00

Engineering 15 17.4000 2.72029 14.00 24.00

Total 637 17.3956 2.41533 10.00 24.00

  332
 H.4.1 (Continued)

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Kinaesthetic Aviation 58 17.0172 2.59210 10.00 22.00

Business Administration 317 16.9779 2.38059 10.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 14.6190 2.59762 8.00 19.00

Computing Studies 39 15.8205 2.69377 8.00 21.00

Life Sciences 56 17.6607 2.45895 12.00 23.00

Language and Humanities 87 16.8276 2.35366 12.00 23.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 17.0435 2.65396 12.00 23.00

Social Sciences 21 18.0000 2.75681 13.00 23.00

Engineering 15 16.6000 2.44365 14.00 24.00

Total 637 16.8995 2.50834 8.00 24.00

Group Aviation 58 17.5000 2.81755 9.00 23.00

Business Administration 317 16.8360 2.92819 5.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 15.2381 2.52794 10.00 20.00

Computing Studies 39 16.7692 2.78588 11.00 24.00

Life Sciences 56 17.4821 2.62845 13.00 24.00

Language and Humanities 87 16.7011 2.45478 11.00 22.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 16.1739 2.53435 7.00 20.00

Social Sciences 21 16.3333 2.74469 10.00 20.00

Engineering 15 17.0667 2.49189 14.00 23.00

Total 637 16.8430 2.79889 5.00 24.00

Individual Aviation 58 16.5000 2.23411 11.00 22.00

Business Administration 317 16.7192 2.19231 10.00 23.00

Dental Hygiene 21 15.6190 2.22432 10.00 20.00

Computing Studies 39 16.0769 2.63962 11.00 21.00

Life Sciences 56 17.3929 2.72816 11.00 24.00

Language and Humanities 87 17.2184 2.12639 11.00 22.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 16.7391 3.87967 11.00 24.00

  333
 H.4.1 (Continued)

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Individual Social Sciences 21 16.4762 2.56162 9.00 21.00

Engineering 15 16.8667 3.15926 11.00 24.00

Total 637 16.7473 2.35000 9.00 24.00

Independent Aviation 58 17.4483 2.29548 12.00 22.00

Business Administration 317 17.7413 2.51375 11.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 16.0000 2.19089 12.00 22.00

Computing Studies 39 16.8718 2.69678 11.00 23.00

Life Sciences 56 18.5357 2.50791 13.00 24.00

Language and Humanities 87 18.0920 2.21849 14.00 23.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 17.1304 2.32192 12.00 21.00

Social Sciences 21 18.8571 2.74382 15.00 24.00

Engineering 15 16.8667 3.06749 12.00 24.00

Total 637 17.7159 2.51710 11.00 24.00

Dependent Aviation 58 17.2931 3.35611 4.00 23.00

Business Administration 317 17.2618 2.37422 9.00 23.00

Dental Hygiene 21 15.7143 2.57183 9.00 20.00

Computing Studies 39 16.5641 2.43651 11.00 22.00

Life Sciences 56 17.6250 2.35536 12.00 23.00

Language and Humanities 87 17.4483 2.56886 9.00 24.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 17.7826 2.69607 11.00 22.00

Social Sciences 21 16.8095 2.15914 12.00 20.00

Engineering 15 17.2000 2.88345 14.00 24.00

Total 637 17.2308 2.54305 4.00 24.00

Analytic Aviation 58 18.1207 2.26396 13.00 23.00

Business Administration 317 17.4006 2.52589 10.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 15.8571 2.68860 10.00 20.00

Computing Studies 39 17.0000 2.52357 11.00 22.00

Life Sciences 56 18.0893 2.10002 11.00 22.00

Language and Humanities 87 17.7586 2.39168 8.00 23.00

  334
 H.4.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Analytic Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 18.0000 2.73030 11.00 23.00

Social Sciences 21 18.2381 3.19225 12.00 23.00

Engineering 15 16.6000 3.06594 10.00 24.00

Total 637 17.5306 2.53114 8.00 24.00

Teacher- Aviation 58 18.6552 2.13206 13.00 23.00

modeling Business Administration 317 18.3060 2.55033 10.00 24.00

Dental Hygiene 21 17.2857 2.32686 13.00 22.00

Computing Studies 39 18.5128 2.52224 10.00 22.00

Life Sciences 56 18.9643 2.57939 13.00 24.00

Language and Humanities 87 18.7241 2.17646 14.00 24.00

Media, Cultural and Creative Studies 23 19.4348 2.40881 15.00 23.00

Social Sciences 21 18.3333 3.08761 13.00 23.00

Engineering 15 17.8667 3.20416 14.00 24.00

Total 637 18.4631 2.50358 10.00 24.00

H.4.2 ANOVA for major field and learning style preferences

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Visual Between Groups 148.855 8 18.607 3.143 .002*

Within Groups 3718.391 628 5.921

Total 3867.246 636

Auditory Between Groups 98.085 8 12.261 2.517 .011*

Within Groups 3059.648 628 4.872

Total 3157.733 636

Tactile Between Groups 196.642 8 24.580 4.393 .000*

Within Groups 3513.666 628 5.595

Total 3710.308 636

  335
 H.4.2 (Continued)

Sum of
df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 217.522 8 27.190 4.512 .000*

Within Groups 3784.048 628 6.026

Total 4001.570 636

Group Between Groups 120.482 8 15.060 1.945 .051

Within Groups 4861.819 628 7.742

Total 4982.301 636

Individual Between Groups 92.460 8 11.557 2.122 .061

Within Groups 3419.848 628 5.446

Total 3512.308 636

Independent Between Groups 189.971 8 23.746 3.884 .000*

Within Groups 3839.599 628 6.114

Total 4029.570 636

Dependent Between Groups 89.723 8 11.215 1.751 .084

Within Groups 4023.354 628 6.407

Total 4113.077 636

Analytic Between Groups 145.912 8 18.239 2.915 .003*

Within Groups 3928.741 628 6.256

Total 4074.653 636

Teacher-modeling Between Groups 86.572 8 10.821 1.743 .086

Within Groups 3899.811 628 6.210

Total 3986.383 636

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  336
H.5.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to type of
secondary school attended

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Visual EMI School in Hong Kong 274 16.6423 2.52964 8.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 16.5303 2.42126 5.00 23.00

Total 621 16.5797 2.46828 5.00 24.00

Auditory EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.6095 2.25419 10.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 17.0836 2.20127 9.00 22.00

Total 621 17.3156 2.23828 9.00 24.00

Tactile EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.4343 2.51975 10.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 17.3401 2.33215 12.00 24.00

Total 621 17.3816 2.41519 10.00 24.00

Kinaesthetic EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.0693 2.64345 8.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 16.6974 2.36498 8.00 24.00

Total 621 16.8615 2.49648 8.00 24.00

Group EMI School in Hong Kong 274 16.9015 2.77768 7.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 16.8127 2.84210 5.00 24.00

Total 621 16.8519 2.81195 5.00 24.00

Individual EMI School in Hong Kong 274 16.8650 2.46886 19.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 16.6311 2.23269 9.00 24.00

Total 621 16.7373 2.34079 9.00 24.00

Independent EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.9526 2.58934 11.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 17.5072 2.45346 12.00 24.00

Total 621 17.7037 2.52199 11.00 24.00

Dependent EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.1168 2.65077 4.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 17.3199 2.47268 9.00 24.00

Total 621 17.2303 2.55269 4.00 24.00

Analytic EMI School in Hong Kong 274 17.6861 2.57133 10.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 17.3919 2.46636 8.00 24.00

Total 621 17.5217 2.51542 8.00 24.00

  337
 H.5.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Teacher-modeling EMI School in Hong Kong 274 18.4927 2.53942 10.00 24.00

CMI School in Hong Kong 347 18.4438 2.47978 10.00 24.00

Total 621 18.4654 2.50435 10.00 24.00

EMI: English medium-of-instruction, CMI: Chinese medium-of-instruction

H.5.2 ANOVA for type of secondary school attended and learning style preferences

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Visual Between Groups 1.923 1 1.923 .315 .575

Within Groups 3775.381 619 6.099

Total 3777.304 620

Auditory Between Groups 42.347 1 42.347 8.556 .004*

Within Groups 3063.792 619 4.950

Total 3106.138 620

Tactile Between Groups 1.360 1 1.360 .233 .630

Within Groups 3615.191 619 5.840

Total 3616.551 620

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 21.180 1 21.180 3.412 .065

Within Groups 3842.910 619 6.208

Total 3864.090 620

Group Between Groups 1.207 1 1.207 .152 .696

Within Groups 4901.164 619 7.918

Total 4902.370 620

Individual Between Groups 8.372 1 8.372 1.529 .217

Within Groups 3388.788 619 5.475

Total 3397.159 620

  338
 H.5.2 (Continued)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Independent Between Groups 30.366 1 30.366 4.804 .029*

Within Groups 3913.115 619 6.322

Total 3943.481 620

Dependent Between Groups 6.315 1 6.315 .969 .325

Within Groups 4033.756 619 6.517

Total 4040.071 620

Analytic Between Groups 13.252 1 13.252 2.098 .148

Within Groups 3909.705 619 6.316

Total 3922.957 620

Teacher-modeling Between Groups .366 1 .366 .058 .809

Within Groups 3888.140 619 6.281

Total 3888.506 620

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

H.6.1 Learning style preference means and standard deviations according to

qualifications on entry

Std.
N Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation

Visual Form 7 / Grade 13 270 16.6667 2.63801 5.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 16.6350 2.12391 8.00 22.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 16.1613 2.84487 5.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 16.5793 2.46588 5.00 24.00

Auditory Form 7 / Grade 13 270 17.5222 2.27918 10.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 16.9781 2.10169 9.00 22.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.7742 2.31314 11.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 17.3250 2.22823 9.00 24.00

  339
 H.6.1 (Continued)
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Tactile Form 7 / Grade 13 270 17.4926 2.50612 10.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 17.1277 2.27788 11.00 23.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.9032 2.46305 11.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 17.3956 2.41533 10.00 24.00

Kinaesthetic Form 7 / Grade 13 270 16.8778 2.62031 8.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 16.7518 2.34022 10.00 23.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.3978 2.61742 10.00 22.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 16.8995 2.50834 8.00 24.00

Group Form 7 / Grade 13 270 16.6630 2.79560 5.00 23.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 16.7518 2.81618 7.00 24.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.6344 2.64897 9.00 24.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 16.8430 2.79889 5.00 24.00

Individual Form 7 / Grade 13 270 16.9111 2.46452 9.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 16.5146 2.25519 11.00 24.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 16.9570 2.24535 9.00 24.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 16.6013 2.68899 9.00 24.00

Independent Form 7 / Grade 13 270 17.8259 2.59598 11.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 17.5912 2.47642 11.00 24.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.7634 2.41102 11.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 17.7159 2.51710 11.00 24.00

Dependent Form 7 / Grade 13 270 17.3296 2.47790 9.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 17.1460 2.29042 11.00 22.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.1935 3.33707 4.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 17.2308 2.54305 4.00 24.00

  340
 H.6.1 (Continued)

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Analytic Form 7 / Grade 13 270 17.7333 2.47425 10.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 17.2591 2.43193 11.00 24.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 17.7419 2.90765 8.00 24.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 17.5306 2.53114 8.00 24.00

Teacher-modeling Form 7 / Grade 13 270 18.7148 2.51467 10.00 24.00

Form 6 / Grade 12 274 18.1533 2.44467 10.00 24.00

Pre-associate degree /
93 18.6452 2.56924 10.00 23.00
Foundation diploma

Total 637 18.4631 2.50358 10.00 24.00

H.6.2 ANOVA for qualifications on entry and learning style preferences

Mean
Sum of Squares df F Sig.
Square

Visual Between Groups 19.162 2 9.581 1.579 .207

Within Groups 3848.084 634 6.070

Total 3867.246 636

Auditory Between Groups 62.240 2 31.120 6.374 .002*

Within Groups 3095.493 634 4.882

Total 3157.733 636

Tactile Between Groups 46.164 2 23.082 3.994 .019*

Within Groups 3664.143 634 5.779

Total 3710.308 636

Kinaesthetic Between Groups 29.200 2 14.600 2.330 .098

Within Groups 3972.370 634 6.266

Total 4001.570 636

  341
 H.6.2 (Continued)
Mean
Sum of Squares df F Sig.
Square

Group Between Groups 69.278 2 34.639 4.470 .012*

Within Groups 4913.024 634 7.749

Total 4982.301 636

Individual Between Groups 26.171 2 13.086 2.380 .093

Within Groups 3486.136 634 5.499

Total 3512.308 636

Independent Between Groups 7.737 2 3.868 .610 .544

Within Groups 4021.833 634 6.344

Total 4029.570 636

Dependent Between Groups 4.737 2 2.369 .366 .694

Within Groups 4108.340 634 6.480

Total 4113.077 636

Analytic Between Groups 35.444 2 17.722 2.782 .063

Within Groups 4039.209 634 6.371

Total 4074.653 636

Teacher-modeling Between Groups 46.490 2 23.245 3.741 .024*

Within Groups 3939.893 634 6.214

Total 3986.383 636

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

  342
  

  343