See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326113022

Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

Article · January 2016

CITATION READS
1 1,309

1 author:

Wissal Belhaj Rhouma

Ghent University
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Working memory capacity during language comprehension View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wissal Belhaj Rhouma on 02 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 09(02):479–492 (2016)

PERCEPTUAL LEARNING STYLES PREFERENCES AND ACADEMIC

ACHIEVEMENT

Wissal Belhaj Rhouma

Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunisia

This paper examines the relationship between academic achievement and perceptual learning style.
Data on perceptual learning style preferences and academic performance were gathered by means of a
structured questionnaire and the participants’ grades. The results reveal that the participants have the
highest preference for the kinesthetic mode. The results also show that low achievers were significantly
more tactual in their preference than high ones. With regards to visual, auditory, and tactual learning
styles, high and low achievers exhibit similar preferences. One of the implications of this study is that
both teachers and learners should be introduced to the concept of perceptual learning style for a better
understanding of their own learning to maximize their chances of success in the foreign language
learning classroom.

Keywords: Visual, Auditory, Tactile, Kinesthetic, Grades.

Introduction

Learning style is broadly defined as “an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way of absorbing,
processing and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1995, cited in Renou, 2009, p. 1). Dunn and
Griggs (1988, cited in Oxford, 2001) provide a definition related to the classroom context through
describing it as “the biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same
teaching method wonderful for some [learners] and terrible for others” (p. 359). In brief, learning styles
differ from one learner to the other which makes teaching sometimes beneficial to some learners and not
so much to others.

Perceptual Learning Styles

Perceptual learning styles are “the means by which learners extract information from their surroundings
through the use of their five senses” (Davis, 2007, p. 46). According to Oxford (2001), the term
‘perceptual preferences’ refers to “the physical, perceptual channels with which the student is the most
comfortable” (p. 360). They are specifically described as “the variations among learners in using one or
more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience” (Reid, 1987:89). Depending on how the
information is presented, the degree of learning varies considerably (Daud, 2014; Dunn & Burke, 2008).
For instance, a learner with kinesthetic preference will be disadvantaged in a teacher-centered classroom.
In psychology, a distinction is established between four basic types of learners: visual, auditory,
kinesthetic, and tactile ones (Dunn and Burke, 2008; Reid, 1987; Scarcella, 1994). Each learner prefers to

479
480 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

be exposed to the language through the mode that helps him/her concentrate best and consequently learn
best (Chiya, 2003). Preferring one mode however does not mean that one cannot combine two or three
modes. The four identified components of perceptual learning styles will be thoroughly explained in the
foethcoming subsections.

Visual Learners

Visual learners refer to individuals who “rely on their sight to take in information” (Renou, 2009, p. 3).
These learners “[have] vivid imagination” (Davis, 2007, p. 47). They recall best information when
equipped with visual aids such as maps, handouts, flashcards, pictures, diagrams, and graphs (Dunn &
Missere, 2007). In a classroom setting, they appreciate most written information on the chalkboard along
with printed materials in textbooks (Reid, 1998). During lectures, visual students resort to excessive note-
taking and they pay close attention to their lecturer’s body language and facial expression (Montemayor,
Aplaten, Mendoza, & Perey, 2009).
It has been argued that learners who prefer to learn by reading are not actually, as was mentioned
earlier visual learners, rather they are auditory ones. The argument presented to support this claim is that
“though we see the words, most of us process the information by hearing ourselves say the words”
(Marcia, 1995, p. 12). Another argument presented by Dalton and Farmer (2002, cited in Cook, 2009)
affirm that “making a sense of a string of syllables, words, sentences, and paragraphs is a left-brain
function” (p. 7). On the other hand, “information such as pictures, images, maps, charts, diagrams, and
melodies are primarily processed in the part of the brain that specializes in perceiving patterns and
integrating component parts into a recognizable whole” (ibid). The arguments presented confirm the
complexity of defining visual oriented learners. It stresses that great care should be taken for the
measurement of such learners for many constructs consider visual learners no more than readers. For
instance, Reid (1987; 1998) overlooked completely in her instrument visual/nonverbal learners (by
pictures, graphs, etc.) and considered only visual/verbal (readers) ones.
Visual learners fall into two categories: visual/verbal and visual/nonverbal learners. Visual/verbal
learners are also called ‘print-oriented’ as they enjoy reading printed materials such as textbooks,
handouts, and their notes (Marcia, 1995). These learners are typically the kind of ‘bookworm’ individuals
who read just for pleasure (Davis, 2007). On the other hand, visual/nonverbal learners transfer
information into a mental picture in order to absorb the presented data (Marcia, 1995). In short,
visual/verbal learners perceive written materials whereas visual/nonverbal learners perceive the drawn
ones.

Auditory Learners

Auditory learners refer to the preference for learning through hearing and listening to words (Renou,
2009). Unlike visual learners, auditory ones feel comfortable with lectures and discussions and benefit
from them (Scarcella, 1990). They remember what they read or say out loud (Renou, 2009). According to
Montemayor et al. (2009), auditory learners easily “interpret the underlying meaning of speech through
listening to the tone of voice, pitch, speed, and other nuances” (p. 61). Materials with which they feel at
ease are CD-ROM, audiotapes, and videos (Juris, Ramos & Castañeda, 2009). Put briefly, auditory
learners learn by listening either to themselves or to others.
Auditory learners can be divided into two types: auditory/nonverbal and auditory/verbal learners.
Auditory/nonverbal are also called ‘listeners’ as they listen to others speak. ‘Listeners’ are learners who
absorb verbal presented information as “they carry on mental dialogues and determine how to continue by
thinking back on to the words of others” (Marcia, 1995, p. 12). Auditory/verbal learners on the other hand
refer to those who need to ‘talk it out’ (Marcia, 1995). They recall information best when they talk to
themselves as they think (Nilson, 2003). Eventually, auditory/nonverbal learners favor listening to others
speak while auditory/verbal favor listening to themselves speak.
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 481

Kinesthetic Learners

Kinesthetic learners retain information “primarily through the performance of body movements”
(Bennouna, 1999, p. 4). These learners “will use movement to help their oncentration” (Davis, 2007, p.
47). They need to sense that they are physically involved in the learning task (Marcia, 1995). Thus, they
find it really difficult standing still in a teacher-centered classroom (Montemayor et al., 2009). They
benefit from vivacious activities such as field trips, role playing, and pantomime (Daud, 2014; Dunn &
Burke, 2008; Reid, 1998). In a classroom setting, they concentrate best with active teachers. They also
recall best when they are given room to participate in classroom activities. In simple words, kinesthetic
learners associate learning with action and movement as opposed to stillness and immobility. This
association results in effective learning.

Tactual Learners

“Tactile suggests learning with hands through manipulation of resources” (Dunn, Beaudry & Klavavas,
2002, p. 53). ‘Hands-on’ learners want to work with materials as they get the chance to have direct
control over them. They enjoy doing artwork, laboratory experiments, building models and “tracing
words and pictures” (Davis, 2007, p. 47; Reid, 1998). Tactual learners feel like they have to do something
when learning (Daud, 2014). For instance, in the classroom, they take notes in lectures and underline
important information as they read (Scarcella, 1990). Simply defined, tactual learners recall best when
they use a ‘hand’s on’ approach (Davis,2007; Naserieh & Anani Sarab, 2013). To conclude, in the
learning process, tactual learners use their hands and feet while kinesthetic learners use “their whole body
and / or by involving themselves as a person” (Lauridsen, 2007, p. 17).
The aforementioned definitions of perceptual learning style components attempted to provide simple
still comprehensive definitions on the one hand and incorporate them within the formal classroom setting
on the other hand. However, these learning styles components are controversial when it comes to their
labeling. In fact, researchers on perceptual learning style label its components differently. Reid’s
Perceptual Leaning Style Preferences model (1987) and Dunn and Dunn’s Learning Style Model (1993,
1999) agree on the four basic widely used components that constitute perceptual learning style, namely
visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile. Conversely, the model of seven perceptual styles first developed
by French (1975, cited in Davis, 2007) differs very much in its labeling from the conceptualization on
which the current study was based (Dunn & Missere, 2007; Reid, 1998). For instance, visual learners in
this construct are actually located in two separate perceptual modes: visual and print. Auditory learners
are as well divided in two modes the aural and the interactive ones. Tactual learners are referred to as
haptic learners. The concept haptic is rather confusing which resulted in its wide misuse. On one
occasion, it refers to tactual style alone (Davis, 2007). On the other, it refers to both tactual and
kinesthetic styles alike (Renou, 2009). An example is that of the Barsch Learning Style Inventory (1996,
cited in Renou, 2009) where kinesthetic and tactual learners are grouped together and where no
distinction is made between the two.

Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Model (Reid, 1987)

Reid (1987) developed the Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Model in which she referred to
perceptual learning style as containing both physiological and social interactions. This construct contains
six elements: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, individual, and group. Reid (1987; 1998) was interested
in particular in these perceptual learning styles as to their degree of preference. She asserts that learners
possess more than one learning style and consequently adapt or switch their styles according to the
environment (Renou, 2009).
She partitioned these preferences in a scale ranging from major, minor, to negligible learning style
preferences. When one preference is ranked as a major one, it constitutes someone’s strength with which
482 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

he/she grasps the information. Conversely, it is pronounced as a weakness when it is scored as a

negligible preference. At last, minor preference is situated in between which implies that it is neither a
force nor a deficit (Reid, 1987).
The current study used Reid’s questionnaire to measure the preferences of the participants involved.
However, it is important to note that though Reid included in her conceptual definition of visual learners
those learning through readings and those through pictures, her operational definition overlooked the
second type. As a consequence, the Dunn and Dunn learning style questionnaire was the tool with which
the second type of visual learners was covered.

Perceptual Learning Styles and Academic Achievement

It was estimated that visual and auditory learners recall 75% of what they read hear (Dunn & Missere,
2007). According to Maal (2004, cited in Cook, 2009), visual learners represent 20% to 40% of the
population while auditory learners represent only 20% to 30%. It goes without saying that in teacher-
centered classes teaching benefits to auditory learners in the first place and visual ones in the second place
(Chiya, 2003). “Teachers tend to judge [such students to be] good learners [based on their] ability to
concentrate more than on [their] motivation level” (Chiya, ibid, p. 5). Accordingly, students having these
styles as preferences feel at ease with the traditional method of learning. As a result, they are more likely
to succeed in classes where learning is a pleasant experience.
Matching learning and teaching style is identified as a crucial factor that affects academic
performance (Ellis, 1989; Hall and Moseley, 2005, cited in Renou, 2009). In fact, extensive
documentation supports that both kinesthetic and tactual learners fail in conventional schools where
learning is by means of either listening or reading (Dunn & Missere, 2007). According to Dunn &
Missere (2007) and Chiya (2003), poor achievers are identified as having tactual or kinesthetic learning
styles as their major preferences.
Class observation conducted by Juris et al. (2009) affirms that “most teachers barely [use] activities
relating to movement, constructing things, taking notes or doing projects” (p. 15); though learners in this
class exhibited preference toward tactile and kinesthetic learning style. Besides the aforementioned
research, a number of studies revealed that the kinesthetic and tactual learning style occupied the first and
second place respectively in terms of ‘strength’ and preference as registered by students (Daud, 2014;
Juris et al., 2009; Reid, 1998).
Indeed, it has been shown that tactual learners if taught accordingly become better students (Miller &
Edgard, 2001, cited in Dunn & Missere, 2007). Such learners remember 75% of what they manipulate,
not what they hear or read (ibid). Likewise, kinesthetic learners need to be bodily involved into the
learning task which is deemed rare. Dunn and Missere (2007) suggested several activities to maximize
learners’ learning potential (Angela & Rochford, 2007). Learning how to use multipart task cards, flip
chutes, pic-a-holes, electroboards, and floor games are essential for any learner to foster his/her autonomy
(Dunn & Missere,2007; Renou, 2009). Eventually, as long as teachers still perceive their role in the class
as that of knowledge holder delivered only in form of speech (written or printed material), many students
will continue to be the victims of their teachers teaching styles as mismatching theirs (Chiya, 2003).

Empirical Studies on Perceptual Learning Styles and Academic Achievement

Reid (1987) conducted a large-scale study on perceptual learning styles preferences on 1300 ESL students
across the United States. Her influential work paved the way for a mass body of research on that
direction. The study examined the relationship between perceptual learning style preferences and various
variables, among them cultural/language backgrounds, gender, age, and major field. Results showed that
ESL students from different backgrounds differed in their preferences. It also demonstrated that males
preferred visual and tactile learning more than females.
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 483

Juris et al. (2009) carried out a study on 254 students and 9 teachers in public and private institutions
in Cordoba, Sucre, Atlantico and Bolivar, Colombia. The purpose of the study was to examine the
learners’ learning styles and teachers’ teaching styles and whether there is a match between the two. It
was shown that no match was observed between the teachers and their students and that the kinesthetic
style was the major preferred mode for the overall participants.
Angela and Rochford (2007) conducted a large scale study to explore the relationship between
learning styles and academic achievement on 2,597 first-year University students enrolled at a private
University. The Building Excellence questionnaire (BE) as developed by Rundle and Dunn (2000, cited in
Angela & Rochford, ibid) was administered. The results demonstrated that specific learning styles were
found to be positively correlating with achievement. It was also revealed that preferences of learning
styles differ according to the informants’ level of achievement.
Similar to Reid’s (1987) study, a small-size cross-cultural study took place in the Tunisian context to
research differences in preferences between American students of Arabic and Tunisian students of
English in relation to age and gender. Bouzayen (2008) noticed that Tunisian learners had a stronger
preference for visual learning than their American counterparts but no significant difference was
identified between males and females as was the case in Reid’s research. He also noticed that kinesthetic
style was a major preference among Tunisian students of English at ISLT.
Academic achievement has been the ultimate aim of SLA research. Researchers went into different
directions striving to explain variance in performance. A number of studies suggest that there is a causal
relationship between perceptual learning styles and academic achievement. A study conducted by Dunn &
Price (1980, cited in Burns, Johnson, and Gable, 1998) on high achievers grade 4-8 compared their
preferences to their counterpart general population (average and low achievers) using Dunn, Dunn, &
Price Learning Style Inventory. The study revealed that high achievers had stronger preferences for tactile
and kinesthetic learning than the rest of the students.
Reyneri, Gerber, & Wiley (2003) carried out a study relating learning style preferences and
achievement among high achieving and underachieving gifted middle school students. They concluded
that both high and low achievers had similar learning preferences. However, Reyneri et al. (2003) found
that there are some differences. Low achievers were found to prefer tactile and kinesthetic modalities.
Surprisingly, the two abovementioned studies are contradicting each other. While the latter claims that
high achievers prefer tactile and kinesthetic modalities, the former claims that low achievers prefer tactile
and kinesthetic modalities.
Montemayor et al. (2009) conducted a research on the differences in perceptual learning styles
between high and low achievers among first-year University teacher education students. Research
findings showed that high and low achievers have the same preferences and that there is no significant
causal relationship. These findings are similar to Burns, Johnson and Gable’s work (1998) in which they
did identify some differences. However, “these differences within an academic achievement group may
be as great as the differences between the groups” (Montemayor et al., 2009, p. 63).
The finding of researchers relating achievement and perceptual learning styles convey apparent
inconsistency in results. To some degree, it might be attributed to the diverse constructs that are used. In
light of the previous research, the present study engages in determining if there are differences in
perceptual learning styles between high and low achievers in the Tunisian context.

Methodology

Setting

The study was conducted at the “Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis” (ISLT). The variety of
languages that are taught under the relatively newly introduced LMD system (License-Master-Doctorate).
Students wanting to major in the Russian language have to pass three years to get their License diploma.
Within these students, there are those who studied the language before in their secondary schools. These
484 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

informants were taught for a period of three years before high school graduation, once a week for two
hours session. On the other hand, there are those who did not study it in secondary schools and therefore
University FL course is their first acquaintance with it.
Unlike many western countries where scores are given in scale from A to D, the Tunisian education
system uses a different one. In fact, results are graded from 0 to 20. At ISLT, the responsible in the
Russian department confirmed that when students overall score is 12 or beyond, they are considered high
achievers ranging from good to excellent students. In case scores are between 11.99 and 10, they are
regarded as medium or average achievers. Those who fall into the remaining category (below 10) are low
achievers and are described as poor or weak students.

Participants

In time of the study, the participants were first-year undergraduate students of Russian enrolled at ISLT.
They were selected in order to exclusively investigate University beginners level in FL courses. They
consisted of 62 students: 20 males and 42 females. For the purpose of the current research, the informants
were arranged into three categories: high achievers (25 students), medium achievers (23 students), and
low achievers (14 students). The sampling was carried out selectively to enable fair representation of the
three categories aforementioned.

Materials

In this study, data were gathered by means of a questionnaire. The questionnaire aimed at identifying
perceptual learning style preferences of the respondents. Data were collected through the implementation
of Perceptual Learning-Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) as developed by Reid (1987; 1998). The
original questionnaire contains two parts. The first part is devoted to the four sensory channels where 5
items for each were set at random. The second part is concerned with learners’ social factors i.e. whether
they are group or individual learners. The second part was removed from the questionnaire for the current
paper engages in researching no more than perceptual channels.
The administered questionnaire contains 20 items, five for each perceptual channel (visual, auditory,
kinesthetic, tactile). Informants were asked to answer 20 items through picking one of the five alternatives
on a 5-point Likert scale: ‘strongly agree’ (SA), ‘agree’ (A), ‘undecided’ (U), ‘disagree’ (D), or ‘strongly
disagree’ (SD). An example of an item with regards to learners with visual preference is “I learn better by
reading what the teacher writes on the chalkboard”. It is essential to note that two items concerning visual
learning style were removed from the questionnaire and were replaced by two others borrowed from The
Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model cited in Montemayor et al. (2009). These items were indispensable
for both types of visual learners to be included in the measurement of preferences. Reid operational
definition overlooked an important facet of visual learners in the questionnaire as she defined them as
only learners who favor exposure to words (written and printed) and thus not including pictures,
diagrams, and so on. The two items inserted are “I need to create a picture on paper or in my mind to
remember it” and “I like demonstrations, seeing diagrams, slides, posters, and visual aids”.
The questionnaire was scored as follows: when the informant responds to the statements of the
questionnaire by “strongly agree”, his/her response is given a score of 5. On the other hand, when the
response is “strongly disagree”, then the score given is 1. It is important to say that each modality is
scored individually and that the total of each one is multiplied by two in order to report the level of
preference for each one (see Appendix C).
Accordingly, preferences concerning perceptual learning style were reported as major, minor, or
negligible ones in this self-report questionnaire (see Appendix C). When a modality score ranges between
38 and 50, it is considered as a major preference which indicates that the learner recalls best with it and
consequently it constitutes his/her strength. When it ranges between 25 and 37, in this case, it is minor
preference which indicates that the modality is not favored by the learner but can manage to learn with it.
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 485

And finally, when it is scored 24 or below, it is then a weakness which prevents the learner from learning
(Reid, 1987) (see Appendix C).
The questionnaire was translated into Arabic specifically the Modern Standard Arabic variety since
participants were students of Russian having only been taught basics of the English language. The
translation into Arabic was provided by Abden and Maarek (1992) and further revised by the researcher
to adjust it to the Tunisian context (see Appendix B).
Apart from the 20 items, the informants were asked about their names and gender. These personal
information were essential for the purpose of the present study. The name and family name of the
respondents were indispensable for the variable academic achievement to be measured and consequently
for these participants to be classified accordingly. The respondents’ gender was necessary in the
classification of the informants by gender.
In addition to the questionnaire, another instrument was required to classify students with regards to
their academic grades. These results were made available by our request to the responsible in the Russian
department whose cooperation has made it possible to get the exact grades of each the participants. The
results were obtained from tests taken in the first semester of the academic year 2014/2015. And
accordingly, participants were classified into three groups. First, high or good achievers were marked 12
or beyond. Second, medium or average achievers were marked between 11.99 and 10. Third, low or weak
achievers were marked below 10.

Piloting

The questionnaire was administered on a sample of 10 students of Russian. There was no reported
difficulty or trouble as to the language used in the questionnaire. Hence, there was no need for further
revision of the Arabic version of the questionnaire. It took the informants about six minutes to complete
it.

Data Processing

During the first week of March 2015, the questionnaire was distributed to the present students in all three
classes of first-year Russian. 68 students responded to the questionnaire. However, only 62 were part of
the analysis phase. That was due to some incomplete returned questionnaire. In addition, the commitment
to the current study called for a minimum of balance to be established between high, medium, and low
achievers. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was the means used to analyze
data. All the items were positively-worded. The ordering of the items was performed by regrouping
together each of the four components. Then, each item was labeled under its sub-component. The sum
was computed according to the original questionnaire (see Appendix C).

Results and Discussion

Perceptual Learning Style Preferences and Academic Achievement

To compare the perceptual learning styles of high achievers and low achievers, the t-test was employed.
The results demonstrate that high achievers differ significantly from low achievers with regards to their
tactual learning style preference (see Table 1). Low achieving students favor more to learn through the
tactual learning style than high achieving ones. The findings also reveal that the more tactile the learners
are, the lower their academic achievement is.
486 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

Table 1. T-test differential analyses for achievement in perceptual learning style preferences
Level of significance Mean score of high Mean score of low
achievers achievers
Visual .766 35.50 36.57
Auditory .925 34.83 35.14
Kinesthetic .819 43.67 43.14
Tactile .035 35.50 41.43

In view of these results, the first hypothesis, which suggests that high achievers differ in their
perceptual preferences from low achievers is partly accepted since high and low achieving students differ
significantly only in their tactile preferences and not on their visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning
styles. These results are in accordance with a number of studies (Angela & Rochford, 2007; Burns et al.,
1998; Reyneri et al., 2003; Montemayor et al., 2009) that though recognized some differences, also
concluded that they are insignificant. That is due to the fact that difference between the groups was as
significant as difference within these groups. It is hard to believe that high achievers have the same
preferences that average and low achievers have. There are definitely other characteristics that distinguish
academically high achievers from the rest. In fact, the quality of the educational system and program, the
amount to which educators are qualified, and attitudes toward the subject matter are all factors that
account for the variance in attainment (Burns et al., 1998). Seen from another angle, the similarity of
students learning style pattern can be interpreted as a positive sign for no particular learning style
preference favors a category of learners at the expense of the others. Actually, all learners have equal
chance of success.
The second hypothesis claims that high achievers tend to have more than one major perceptual
learning preference. Surprisingly, kinesthetic learning style was the sole major preference for high and
average achievers whereas low achieving students favored both kinesthetic and tactile as their major
preferences (see Table 1). It was expected that high achieving students would have at least two major
preferences (mixed modalities). There were no reported negligible preferences from any of the students
not even from the poor achievers. Based on these results, the second hypothesis, which asserts that high
achievers have more than one major preferred learning style is declined. Unpredictably, the results of the
current study along with previous research produced contradictory results as to major multimodalities.
While the present study found students to have only one major preference, previous ones (Bouzayen,
2008; Juris et al., 2009) revealed that students have three major learning style preferences. It is assumed
that having more than one major learning style increases one’s chance to succeed thanks to internalized
flexibility and adaptation to a variety of teaching styles situations (Chiya, 2003). Thus, the present study
presents new interesting findings which further confirm the fact that good learners are unique. As a matter
of fact, everyone has its own ways and means for learning.

Perceptual Learning Styles and Gender

The t-test was performed in order to compare the perceptual learning style preference of males and
females. Results show no significant difference between males and females (see Table 2). Nevertheless,
slight differences are noticed between them. It is observed that female learners are more tactile and visual
than their male counterparts. The major preference for males is only the kinesthetic learning style and
both kinesthetic and tactile learning style for female learners.
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 487

Table 2. T-test differential analyses for gender in perceptual learning style preferences
Level of significance Mean score of female Mean score of male
students students
Visual .198 37.50 34.20
Auditory .377 35.30 32.40
Kinesthetic .889 41.90 42.20
Tactile .153 38.60 34.40

Based on these results, the third hypothesis, which asserts that males and females differ in their
perceptual learning style preferences is rejected. Research carried out by Bouzayen (2008), within the
same context (ISLT), produced identical results as to male and female respondents’ differences of
perceptual learning style preferences. The results of the study at hand confirm the aforementioned
hypothesis and contrast with that of Reid (1987) in which she found male students to be more visual and
tactile than their female counterparts. These findings might either be due to the small size sample (n=30)
or just reflect the sample population at that particular time and place. Consequently, this insignificance
between male and female students cannot be generalized to a larger context.

Conclusion

The triangle of pedagogy consisting of teacher, students, and subject (Coffield, Moseley, Hall &
Ecclestone, 2004) is far from being a simple one. All three parts should go hand in hand with each other.
Additionally, they ought to consider perceptual learning styles as an important factor that have a direct
influence on students’ attitudes toward either the subject of study or the teacher and sometimes both.
Thus, their performances as well as their academic outcomes are affected. It should be made clear that not
only teachers but also learners ought to be introduced to the concept for a better understanding of
learning, in general and theirs, in particular. Learners by being aware of their own learning process will
become more responsible and will consequently recognize their deficiencies to overcome them. Teachers
from their part will accordingly perceive all students on equal grounds and make the effort when
preparing their lessons to diversify their presentation techniques to meet all individuals’ needs. Hence, all
three parts involved in the pedagogical triangle are equally important and efforts ought to be distributed
for learning to take place at its best.
For the learning to take place efficiently, learners ought to be introduced to the concept of perceptual
learning style preferences. Most importantly, they should recognize their strengths as much as their
weaknesses as a first step. Then, they need to make the most of it through taking advantage of their forces
and empowering their deficiencies. Educators and syllabus designers should take into consideration
perceptual learning styles to help students maximize their learning potential and minimize their retention
issues. Realizing the magnitude of perceptual learning styles is not advantageous just to learners, it is also
to teachers. Teachers from their part need to make an effort to appeal to all learners through creating an
environment where learners can concentrate to absorb, process, and retain the new information (Reid,
1995, cited in Renou, 2009).

References

1. Abden, A. E. and Maarek, S. E. (1992). Perceptual learning style preferences among at Saudi Arabia
Universities. Journal of University Malek Saoud, (4) 335-375.
2. Angela, C. & Rochford, R. A. (2007). An analysis of freshmen learning styles and their relationship to
academic achievement. College Quarterly, 10 (2).
488 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

3. Bennouna, S. (1999). Patterns of perceptual learning styles for adult learners experiencing distance education.
Published master thesis, University of South Florida.
4. Bouzayen, M. A. (2008). Perceptual learning style preferences amonst ISLT American students of Arabic and
Tunisian students of English. Unpublished BA thesis, Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis.
5. Burns, D. E., Jonhson, S. E., and Gable, R. K. (1998). Can we generalize about the learning style
characteristics of high academic achievers? Roeper Review, 20 (4).
6. Chiya S. (2003). The importance of learning styles and learning strategies in EFL teaching in Japan. Published
master thesis.
7. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K.(2004). Learning style and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A
systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skill Research Centre.
8. Cook, S. L. (2009). Auditory learning style - verbal / linguistic intelligence. Teaching a gifted child with a
learning disability.
9. Daud, S. (2014). Learning styles of medical students. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 8 (1):
40-46.
10. Davis, S. E. (2007). Learning styles and memory. Institute of Learning Style Reserach Journal, 1, 46-51.
11. Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S. , & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. California Journal of
Science Education, 2(2) 75-98.
12. Dunn, R. & Burke, K (2008). Learning style: The clue to you: Research and implementation manual.
13. Dunn, R. & Missere, N. (2007). Lives research and implementation manual.
14. Ellis, R. (1989). Classroom learning styles and their effect on second language acquisition: a study of two
learners, System, 17 (2), 249-261.
15. Juris, F. M., Ramos, V. V. & Castañeda, M. G. G. (2009). Learning and teaching crossroads. Institute of
Learning Style Reserach Journal, 1, 11-19.
16. Lauridsen, O. (2007). OneNote and learning styles. Learning styles lab.
17. Marcia, L. C. (1995). Learning : The Critical technology (2nd ed.). The wave technologies International inc.
18. Montemayor, E., Aplaten, M. C., Mendoza, G.C. & Perey, G. M. (2009). Learning styles of high and low
academic achieving freshman teacher education students: An application of the Dunn and Dunn’s Learning
Style Model. University of the Coordilleras Journal. 1 (4) 58-71.
19. Naserieh, F. and Anani Sarab, M. R. (2013). Perceptual Learning Style Preferences among Iranian Graduate
Students. System, 41 (1) 122-133.
20. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Teaching at its best. A research-based resource for college instructors (2nd ed.). Bolton:
Heinle & Heinle.
21. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia(ed.), Teaching English as a
second or Foreign language (3rd ed.). Bolton: Heinle & Heinle.
22. Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quartedly, 21(1), 87-109.
23. Reid, J. M. (ed.) (1998). Understanding learning styles. In J.M. Reid (Ed.), Understanding learning styles in
the second language classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
24. Renou, J. (2009) A study of perceptual learning style and achievement in a university level foreign language
course, Universidad DePuerto Rico.
25. Reyneri, L., Gerber, B. and Wiley, L. (2003). Gifted achievers and gifted underachievers: The impact of
learning style preferences in the classroom.
26. Scarcella, R. (1990). Teaching language minority students in multi-cultural classroom. USA: Prentice Hall
Regent.
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 489

Appendix A

Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire

Name: ……………………………..

Surname: …………………………

Gender:

Male:

Female:

This questionnaire is part of a research project about perceptual learning styles and preferences
among students of Russian. Please respond to each statement quickly, without too much thought in a way
that reflects your immediate reaction to the following statements.
Very important: there is no right or wrong answer, the important is that you respond truthfully. Please
do not be indifferent, as your responses are of great importance to this research.
We inform all the students that their responses will be secretly preserved and will only be used in the
course of this scientific research.
Put (x) to mark your choices. Try not to change your responses after you choose them.

Example:

SA A U D SD
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
X

Item Item SA A U D SD
number
1 When the teacher tells me the instructions I
understand better
2 I prefer to learn by doing something in class
3 I learn better by reading what the teacher writes
on the chalkboard
4 When someone tells me how to do something in
class, I learn it better
5 When I do things in class, I learn better
6 I remember things I have heard in class better
than things I have read
7 I need to create a picture on paper or in my mind
to remember it
8 I learn more when I can make a model of
something
9 I like demonstrations, seeing diagrams, Slides,
posters, and visual aids
10 I learn more when I make something for a class
project
490 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

11 I enjoy learning in class by doing experiments

12 I learn better when I make drawings as I study
13 I learn better in class when the teacher gives a
lecture
14 I understand things better in class when I
participate in role-playing
15 I learn better in class when I listen to someone
16 When I build something, I remember what I have
learned better
17 I learn better by reading than by listening to
someone
18 I learn best in class when I can participate in
related activities
19 I learn more by reading textbooks than by
listening to lectures
20 I enjoy making something for a class project

Thank you for your cooperation

Appendix B

ϥΎϴΒΘγ·
………………………… :Ϣγϻ΍
………………………… :ΐϘϠϟ΍
:βϨΠϟ΍
: ήϛΫ
: ϰΜϧ΃

Ϟϛ Ϧϋ ΔΑΎΟϹ΍ ˯ΎΟήϟ΍ .Δϴγϭήϟ΍ ΔΒϠρ ϯΪϟ ΔϠπϔϤϟ΍ Δϴϛ΍έΩϹ΍ ΔϴδΤϟ΍ ϢϠόΘϟ΍ ΐϴϟΎγ΃ ϝϮΣ ΚΤΑ ωϭήθϣ ϦϤο ϥΎϴΒΘγϹ΍ ΍άϫ ΝέΪϨϳ
.ΔΣϭήτϤϟ΍ Ε΍έΎΒόϠϟ ϰϟϭϷ΍ ϚϠόϓ ΓΩέ βϜόΗ ΔϘϳήτΑ ΩΩήΗ ϥϭΪΑ ϭ ΔϋήδΑ ϥΎϴΒΘγϹ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ ΓΩϮΟϮϤϟ΍ ΕΎϧΎΨϟ΍
Ε΍Ϋ ϚΘΑϮΟ΃ ϥϷ ϝΎΒϣ ήϴϏ ϥϮϜΗ ϻ ϥ΃ ϮΟέ΃ ΎϤϛ .ϕΪλ ϭ ΔϳήΣ ϞϜΑ ΔΑΎΟϹ΍ ϢϬϤϟ΍ .ΊρΎΧ ήΧ΁ ϭ ΢ϴΤλ Ώ΍ϮΟ ΪΟϮϳ ϻ :΍ΪΟ ϡΎϫ
.ϲϤϠόϟ΍ ΚΤΒϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ϯήΒϛ ΔϴϤϫ΃
.ϲϤϠόϟ΍ ΚΤΒϟ΍ ν΍ήϏϷ ςϘϓ ϡΪΨΘδΘγ ϭ ΔϣΎΘϟ΍ ΔϳήδϟΎΑ ρΎΤΘγ ϢϬΗΎΑΎΟ· ϥ΃ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ΔϓΎϛ ϢϠόϧ
.ΎϬϟ ϙέΎϴΘΧ· ΪόΑ ϚΘΑΎΟ· ήϴϐΗ ϻ .ϙέΎϴΘΧ· ΎϬϴϠϋ ϊϘϳ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϧΎΨϟ΍ ϲϓ (x) Δϣϼόϟ΍ ϊο
:ϝΎΜϣ
ΓΪθΑ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ϻ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ϻ ήϴϏ Ϊϛ΄Θϣ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ΓΪθΑ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃
X

ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ϻ ϻ ήϴϏ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ ΔϧΎΨϟ΍ Ϣϗέ

ΓΪθΑ ϖϓ΍ϭ΃ Ϊϛ΄Θϣ ΓΪθΑ ΔϧΎΨϟ΍
ΎϣΪϨϋ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ΕΎϤϴϠόΘϟ΍ ϢϬϓ΃ 1
ΎϳϮϔη αέΪϤϟ΍ ΎϬϟϮϘϳ
Ύϣ ϞϤόΑ ϡΎϴϘϟ΍ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ ϢϠόΗ΃ ϥ΃ Ϟπϓ΃ 2
ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ
ϪΒΘϜϳ Ύϣ Γ˯΍ήϗ Ϧϣ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ 3
ΓέϮΒδϟ΍ ϰϠϋ αέΪϤϟ΍
 Wissal Belhaj Rhouma 491

ϞϤόΑ ϡϮϗ΃ ϒϴϛ ΎϳϮϔη ΪΣ΃ ϲϧήΒΨϳ ΎϣΪϨϋ 4

Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύϣ
ξόΒΑ ϡϮϗ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ 5
ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϦϳέΎϤΘϟ΍

Ϟπϓ΃ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϬΘόϤγ ϲΘϟ΍ ˯ΎϴηϷ΍ ήϛάΗ΃ 6

ΎϬΗ΃ήϗ ϲΘϟ΍ ˯ΎϴηϷ΍ Ϧϣ

ϰϠϋ ϭ΃ ϲϨϫΫ ϲϓ ΓέϮλ ϊο΃ ϥ΃ ΝΎΘΣ΃ 7

ΎϫήϛάΗ΃ ϲϜϟ ϕέϮϟ΍

Ύϣ ˯ϲθϟ ΎΟΫϮϤϧ ϊϨλ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ήΜϛ΃ ϢϠόΗ΃ 8

ϡϮγήϟ΍ Δϳ΅έ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ ϢϠόΗ΃ ϥ΃ Ϟπϓ΃ 9
ΕΎϨϴόϤϟ΍ ϭ ΕΎϘμϠϤϟ΍ ϭ ΢΋΍ήθϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϧΎϴΒϟ΍
ΔϳήμΒϟ΍
ϦϳήϤΘϛ ˯ϲη ϊϨλ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ήΜϛ΃ ϢϠόΗ΃ 10
ΔΑήΠΘΑ ϡϮϗ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϢϠόΘϟΎΑ ϊΘϤΘγ΃ 11
ϭ ΕΎϣϮγήΑ ϡϮϗ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ 12
αέΩ΃ Ύϧ΃
αέΪϤϟ΍ ϲϘϠϳ ΎϣΪϨϋ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ 13
.ΓήοΎΤϣ
ϙέΎη΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϬϓ΃ 14
αέΪϟΎΑ ΔϴϠϴΜϤΗ ϲϓ έϭΪΑ
κΨη ϰϟ· ϊϤΘγ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϢϠόΗ΃ 15
ήΧ΁
ήϛάΗ΃ ϢδϘϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύϣ ˯ϲθΑ ϊϨμΑ ϡϮϗ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ 16
Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϪΘϤϠόΗ Ύϣ
ήΜϛ΃ Γ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ Ϟπϓ΃ ϞϜθΑ ϢϠόΗ΃ 17
Ύϣ κΨη ϰϟ· ωΎϤΘγϹ΍ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ Ϯϫ ΎϤϣ
Ϧϣ ϦϜϤΗ΃ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϪΟϭ Ϟπϓ΃ ϰϠϋ ϢϠόΗ΃ 18
Δϴγ΍έΪϟ΍ ΔτθϧϷ΍ ϲϓ ϙ΍ήΘηϻ΍
ήΜϛ΃ ΔϴγέΪϤϟ΍ ΐΘϜϟ΍ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ ήΜϛ΃ ϢϠόΗ΃ 19
ϰϟ· ωΎϤΘγϻ΍ ϖϳήρ Ϧϋ Ϯϫ ΎϤϣ
Ε΍ήοΎΤϤϟ΍
ϲγ΍έΩ ωϭήθϤϛ Ύϣ ˯ϲη ϊϨμΑ ϊΘϤΘγ΃ 20

ϢϜϧϭΎόΗ ϦδΤϟ ΍ήϜη

 492 Perceptual Learning Styles Preferences and Academic Achievement

Appendix C

Self-scoring Sheet

Instructions: there are 5 questions for each learning category in this questionnaire. The questions are
grouped below according to each learning style. Each question you answer has a numerical value:

SA A U D SD
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

Fill in the blanks below with the numerical value of each answer. When you have completed all the
numerical values for Visual, add the numbers. Multiply the answer by 2, and put the total in the
appropriate blank.
Follow this process for each of the learning style categories. When you are finished, look at the
scale at the bottom of the page; it will help you determine your major learning style preference(s), your
minor learning style preference(s), and those learning style(s) that are negligible.

VISUAL KINESTHETIC

3 - _____ 2 - _____
7 - _____ 5 - _____
9 - _____ 11 - _____
17 - _____
14 - _____
19 - _____
18 - _____

Total_____ x 2 = _____(Score)
Total_____ x 2 = _____(Score)
AUDITORY TACTILE

1 - _____ 8 - _____
4 - _____
6 - _____ 10 - _____
13 - _____ 12 - _____
15 - _____ 16 - _____
20 - _____
Total_____ x 2 = _____(Score)
Total_____ x 2 = _____(Score)

Major Learning Style Preference 38-50

Minor Learning Style Preference 25-37
Negligible 0-24

View publication stats