Tài liệu An investigation into learning and teaching style preferemces at quang ninh teacher training college

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI UNIVERSITY VU THI HUONG GIANG AN INVESTIGATION INTO LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLE PREFERENCES AT QUANG NINH TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN TESOL SUPERVISOR’ S NAME: MA. HOANG VAN HO AT (է w ^ 째 ք T4TV Hanoi, October 2008 ՜՜ᅳ ^ . ĩrungĩ Am 1 ĨHỒN8TINTHƯVIẾN !NN-VHNũữc HGOẢI ■ ■ 琴 ■ ± քէձձՕ յ STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the minor thesis entitled nAn investigation into learning and teaching style preferences at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College” and submitted in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree of Master o f Arts in TESOL is the result of my work, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this minor thesis or any part of the same has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution. The research reported in this thesis was approved by Hanoi University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my academic supervisors, Mr. Hoang Van Hoat, M.A (TESOL), a senior lecturer at Hanoi University, from whom I received constant encouragements, guidance, and valuable critical feedback in the preparation and completion o f this thesis. I also wish to acknowledge all the MA lecturers and the whole staff of the Post-Graduate Department at Hanoi University for their professional teaching and kind help throughout the course. I wish to express my deep gratitude to Ms Nguyen Thai Ha, M.A (TESOL), the Vice Dean o f the Post-Graduate Department, who have provided me with an invaluable source of knowledge during my M A course at Hanoi University. My special thanks go to my colleagues and all my students in the experimental groups who have offered me strong supports and encouragement during my study. Last, but not least, I wish to say thank you to my family for their love, care, and tolerance that encourage me a lot in completing this study. ABSTRACT This study is an investigation into the learning and teaching style preferences at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC). The Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey (PLSPS) by Reid (1998) was used to determine the preferred learning styles and Peacock’s (2001) modified version o f PLSPS was used to determine teaching styles at QNTTC. Statistical analysis o f variance was done to determine the percentage of match between the preferred learning and teaching styles. The study purposes included determining i f a match existed between students’ learning styles o f non-English majors and teaching styles o f language teachers at QNTTC. The participants were eight language teachers and 160 non-English major students aged 18-19 on average at QNTTC. The ages o f the teacher participants ranged from 29 to 48 with the average age being 38. The teachers favored tactile and group as their major teaching styles. Their least preferred instructional styles were individual. On PLSPS by Reid (1998)，the student participants favored kinesthetic and auditory. Their least preferred scales were for tactile. In this study, the worst mismatches between the teaching styles o f language teachers and the learning styles o f non-English majors at QNTTC were tactile and group learning. Besides, there are some differences in learning styles between the students o f natural sciences and social sciences. The students o f natural sciences most preferred kinesthetic and individual as their major learning styles, while the students o f social sciences chose kinesthetic and group as their major leaning style preferences. Another difference between the natural science students and the social science students is the former chose group to be another negligible learning style, while the latter showed their negative preference for individual learning. In addition, there were differences between learning styles o f the sub-groups o f students at the different academic school years, such as, there was a mismatch between the preferences for individual learning style o f the first-year natural students and the second-year natural science students, while a mismatch existed between group learning style o f the first-year social science students and the second-year social science students. Based on the findings o f the study, some suggestions are recommended for using strategies to the students at QNTTC and implications for learning and teaching in language classrooms at QNTTC. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EFL : English as a foreign language NS-I : First-year natural science NS-II : Second-year natural science PLSPS : Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey QNTTC : Quang Ninh Teacher Training College SS-I : First-year social science SS-II : Second-year social science TESOL : Teaching o f English to Speakers o f Other Languages UG : Undergraduate students LIST OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND TABLES Appendix 1: Questionnaire for students (English version)...................................... pages 69 Appendix 2: Questionnaire for students (Vietnamese version)............................... 72 Appendix 3: Questionnaire for the teachers............................................................ 75 Figure 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ................................................................ 34 Figure 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear natural science students at QNTTC，2007 ........................................................ 35 Figure 4.3: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year social science students at QNTTC，2007 .................................................................. 37 Figure 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear social science students at QNTTC, 2007 .......................................................... 39 Figure 4.5: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors at QNTTC，2007 ........................................................................................................... Figure 4.6: Major, minor and negligible language teaching stylesat QNTTC, 2007 42 44 Table 2.1: Overview o f six learning styles according to Richardsand Lockhart (1994)，Reid (1998) and W iling (1988).................................................................... 14 Table 3.1: Profile o f student subjects at QNTTC, 2007 .......................................... 26 Table 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ................................................................ 34 Table 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ........................................................ 35 Table 4.3: Comparison o f the First-year Natural Science and the Second-year Natural Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC，2007 ................. 36 Table 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year social science students at QNTTC, 2007 .................................................................. 38 Table 4.5: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear social science students at QNTTC，2007 .......................................................... 39 Table 4.6: Comparison o f the First-year Social Science and the Second-year Social Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .................. Table 4.7: Comparison o f the natural science and the social science students’ learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ........................................................... Table 4.8: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors at QNTTC, 2007 ........................................................................................................ Table 4.9: Major, minor and negligible language teaching styles at QNTTC, 2007 Table 4.10: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the first-year natural science з и кіе г^ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................ Table 4.11: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the second-year natural science students9perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................ Table 4.12: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the first-year social science students9perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................ Table 4.13: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and second-year social science students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC，2007................ Table 4.14: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the non-English major students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .................. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF A U TH O R S H IP ........................................................................ AC KN O W LED G EM EN TS................................................................................... A B S TR A C T............................................................................................................ LIST OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S ................................................................................. LIST OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND T A B L E S ............................................ TABLE OF C O NTEN TS....................................................................................... • » '» 'V V vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION լ. 1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY.................................................................... 1 1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS........................................................................................... 3 ................... 4 1.3. OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH OF THE STUDY.................................................................... 1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................ 4 1.5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................................ 5 1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS............................................................................................. 5 CHAPTER 2: LITE R A TU R E REVIEW 2.1. DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES................................................... 6 2.1.1. DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING STYLES................................................................................. 6 2.1.2. DEFINITIONS OF TEACHING STYLES............................................................................... 8 2.2. DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING STY LES..................................................................................... 9 2.2.1. ANALYTIC VERSUS GLOBAL PROCESSING AND ITS UKELY CORRELATES................. 10 2.2.1.1. FIELD-DEPENDENCE VERSUS FIELD-INDEPENDENCE.................................................... 10 2.2.1.2. REFLECTION VERSUS IMPULSIVITY............................................................................... 11 2.2.1.3. INTUITION VERSUS SENSING......................................................................................... 12 2.2.2. SENSORY PREFERENCES.................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.1. VISUAL LEARNERS.......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.22. AUDITORY LEARNERS.................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.3. KINESTHETIC LEARNERS................................................................................................. 13 vii 2.2.2A. TACTILE LEARNERS........................................................................................................ 13 2.2.3. GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS............................................................................... 13 2.2.4. SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 14 2.3. LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES...................................................................... 15 2.4. LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING STRATEGIES............................................................. 18 2.5. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES...................... 20 2.6. LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLE INSTRUMENTS............................................. 22 2.7. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3: M ETHODOLOGY 3.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY............................................................................... 25 3.2. SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................ 25 3. 3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS.................................................................................. 27 3.4. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES........................................................................................ 30 3.5. DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................ 32 3.6. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS.......................................................... 33 4.1.1. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC ........... 33 4.1.1.1. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC................................................................................................................................. 33 4.1.1.2. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC............................................................................................................. 35 4.1.1.3. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC.................................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.1.4. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC............................................................................................................ 4.1.1.5. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF NATURAL 38 SCIENCE STUDENTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC........................................ 4.1.1.6. OVERVIEW OF LEARNING STYLES OF THE STUDENTS ACROSS CLASSES OF THE NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT QNTTC........................................................................................... ぬ 4.1.2. PREFERRED LANGUAGE TEACHING STYLES AT QNTTC.............................................. 43 4.1.3. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 44 CLASSES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC.............................................................. 4.1.3.1. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 45 CLASSES OF NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC........................................................... 4.1.3.2. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 45 CLASSES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC................................................................... 4.1.3.3. OVERVIEW OF MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING 48 STYLES ACROSS CLASSES OF NON-ENGLISH MAJORS SCIENCE AT QNTTC............................. 4.2. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................... 49 4.2.1. DISCUSSION ON THE LEARNING STYLES PREFERENCES OF NON-ENGUSH MAJORS ATQNTTC......................................................................................................................... 49 4.2.2. DISCUSSION ON THE TEACHING STYLES PREFERENCES OF LANGUAGE TEACHERS AT QNTTC............................................................................................. 4.3. SUM M ARY.................................................................................................................................. 51 52 CHAPTER 5: IM P LIC A T IO N S AND CONCLUSION 5.1. MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY....................................................................................... 54 5.2. IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS........................................................................................ 55 5.2.1. IMPUCATIONS FOR NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC ................................................ 55 5.2.2. IMPUCATIONS FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS AT QNTTC ............................................... 57 5.2.3. SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING AID IMPROVEMENT..................................................... 60 5.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH........... 61 5.4. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. 62 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 64 APP E N D IX ES ........................................................................................................... 69 ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This thesis reports the results o f a study conducted to make an investigation into the learning and teaching styles and the match between the two at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College. The introductory chapter presents the theoretical background to the study, provides a detailed description o f the problem the thesis attempts to solve, states the objectives o f the study and presents an overview o f the thesis. 1.1. Theoretical background Learners have certain characteristics, such as intelligence, personality, learning styles, aptitude, attitude, beliefs and so on, which lead to more or less successful language learning (Lightbrown & Spada, 1999). Among the different factors that affect learner performance, learning style has now been considered as a major factor in psycholinguistic research (W illing, 1987). Thus, there has been an increase in interest in how people learn and how people prefer to learn. In a class, students should be aware o f their own learning styles because o f the following considerable advantages including their abilities to develop additional learning styles and to modify their existing learning patterns w ill be increased (Henson & Borthwick, 1984). Besides, students who understand and then are provided opportunities to make use o f their learning styles tend to feel valued, respected, and empowered (Carbo & Hodges, 1988). Furthermore, knowing what their learning style is helps students respond to the presented material in the most effective way. Even when the material is not presented in the way they prefer or the instructor has different styles with them or the topic is not familiar, they can use their knowledge o f learning styles to adjust the difference and be flexible in their learning. It is also very helpful and necessary for teachers to have some basic knowledge o f their students’ learning styles in expectations that teachers and learners alike w ill be very helpful to meet learners’ needs, to narrow the perceived mismatch between teaching and learning styles and to achieve the aim o f desired teaching and learning outcomes. Moreover, as teachers develop professionally in this area, their students w ill also benefit through knowledge about styles and strategies involve in optimizing their individual learning styles (Reid, 1995). 1 Many educational institutions are now moving towards more emphasis on learning style preferences. The purpose o f identifying students' learning style preferences is also to help the teacher design tasks that can facilitate students' learning. In doing so, teachers can help their students become more effective learners and help them make their study not only more successful but also more enjoyable. H armer (2001) declared that: Faced with the different descriptions o f learner types and styles, it may seem that the teacher's task is overwhelmingly complex. We want to satisfy the many different students in front o f us, teaching to their individual strengths with activities designed to produce the best results for each o f them, yet we also want to address our teaching to the group as a whole (p.l 12). A point has been made that each class is unique and as a result, each class w ill need to be treated differently (Harmer， 2001) and i f students do not learn the way we teach them, then we must teach them the way they learn (Marshal, 1991). Thus, teachers need to know a lot about them and consequently, they still have much to learn about how to reach all students to do the teaching job effectively. Cheng (1995) says that teachers have styles that they use as they plan and present material to their students, and that teacher behavior in the classroom can significantly affect learner achievement. Some authors claim that teachers can and should know their preferred styles (W illing, 1988; Reid, 1995) so that teachers can teach in balanced teaching styles in order to accommodate different learning styles. Teaching styles vary and all teachers have their own individual teaching styles, which can be identified (Reid, 1995; W illing, 1988). Identifying a teaching style is useless unless an attempt is made to match it with the appropriate learning styles (Henson & Borthwick, 1984). That means it is not enough to identify teaching styles, but the teacher should try to match his/ her teaching style(s) with an appropriate learning style. In other words, teachers need to consider the importance o f matching their teaching with their students’ learning styles. However, within the classroom the teacher's role may change from one activity to another or from one stage o f an activity to another，because rarely any one instructor is adequately represented by a single teaching style, just as no student is characterized by a single learning style (Tanner, Chatman & Allen, 2003). It is also suggested that i f teachers are fluent and flexible at making changes with different activities in the classroom, their effectiveness as teachers is considerably enhanced (Harmer, 2001). 2 Thus, the matter o f matching learning and teaching styles w ill still be considered as an important issue among educators (Henson & Borthwick, 1984). Ỉ.2. Statement o f the problem Attention to teaching and learning styles has been described as part o f the desirable trend towards learner-centered and needs-based instruction (W illing, 1988; Kinsella, 1995; Tudor, 1996). W illing (1988) also indicates that awareness o f teaching styles and o f learning styles w ill help teachers and learners decide how to accommodate different styles in the classroom. Thus, learning styles and teaching styles, and particularly the match between them, are an important under-researched aspect o f EFL classroom. Unfortunately, there is a great deal o f theoretical support for the idea that mismatches are common and that they negatively affect learning and learner’s motivation and attitude. And a number o f authors propose that mismatches between teaching and learning styles often occur and have bad effects on students’ learning and attitudes to the class and to English (Reid, 1987; Felder, 1995). To reduce teacher-student style conflicts, some researchers advocate that teaching and learning styles should be matched (Smith & Renzulli， 1984; Oxford, 1991). Despite all this, not enough studies have researched that idea or even investigate teaching styles o f teachers. And the same contexts exist in Vietnam in general, and at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC) in particular. Quang Ninh Teacher Training College is located in Uong Bi town, Quang Ninh province. Students at QNTTC come from different parts o f Quang Ninh province so the difference between their individual characteristics is considerable. As a result, language teachers at QNTTC always get difficulties with their teaching job because they have to work with different categories o f students. One main reason for that is the variety and nature o f learning styles o f students differ from each other. Secondly, not only do learners differ from each other, but also teachers differ in their teaching styles. A variety o f perspectives is, therefore, required for teachers to consider. Based on the researcher's personal experience in teaching English as a foreign language at QNTTC，and based on the information collected from the colleagues and the students, the researcher found that mismatches often occur between the learning styles of non-English major students in a language class and the teaching styles o f the language teachers o f the English Department with unfortunate effects on the quality o f the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward the class and the English subject. 3 Thus, it is really useful and necessary for teachers to identify the learning styles o f their students, their own teaching styles, and then vary their teaching methods to meet the wide range o f different learner preferences. This study attempted to investigate learning styles o f the non-English majored students and the teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC through a concrete picture o f the learning and teaching styles preferences at QNTTC. The mismatches between teaching and learning styles and some suggestions to reduce them w ill be concerned in the research with some hope that the match and mismatch between teaching and learning styles w ill be more considered in the teaching context in Quang Ninh in particular, and in Vietnam in general. 1.3. Objectives and research questions o f the study Fully aware o f the problems that confront the English teaching and learning at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC), the researcher would like to build up this minor thesis to find out what learning styles are mostly preferred by the non-English major students at QNTTC; what are the different learning styles preferred among the students according to their different majors and academic school-year; what teaching styles are mostly preferred by the language teachers at QNTTC and the match/ mismatch between the teaching styles o f the language teachers and the learning style preferences o f the non-English major students at QNTTC. 1.4. Significance o f the study Firstly, the study expanded the limited research into learning and teaching styles and gave more insights o f the fields for Vietnamese learners and teachers, particularly for students and teachers at QNTTC. Secondly, the identification o f learning and teaching styles and significant results contributed to an understanding o f some problems with language learning and teaching we often deal with. As a result, we may reduce the perceived mismatch and improve the match between learning and teaching styles, which w ill be very helpful to achieve the desired teaching and learning outcomes. In addition, teachers at QNTTC would also benefit from this study by determining the learning styles o f their students. As a result, teachers can find it useful in planning their appropriate teaching in the classroom. Besides, the study has some important 4 implications for training students with different learning styles in using language learning strategies. 1.5. Scope o f the study This study was carried out at QNTTC located in Quang Ninh, a northeast province in Vietnam. The subjects o f the study were limited to non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC, which is a limitation o f the research as a result. This nonexperimental study aims at discovering preferred learning and teaching styles at QNNTC, focusing on the match and/ or mismatch between those o f non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC. From the study relevant recommendations were made for the students9 use o f learning strategies to promote the effectiveness and quality o f their learning. 1.6. O rganization o f the thesis The thesis consists o f five chapters as follows: Chapter one, Introduction, includes theoretical background to the study, statements o f the problems, the objectives o f the study, the significance o f the study, the scope o f the study, and the organization o f the study. Chapter two, Review of Related Literature, includes definitions o f learning styles and teaching styles, dimensions o f learning styles, relationship between learning styles and teaching styles, relationship between learning styles and strategies, overview o f related literature that represented the major pillars o f the study concerning learning styles and teaching styles theory and the summary. Chapter three, Methodology, is the methodological approach that includes research questions, the subject selection, instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis procedures o f the study, and the summary. Chapter four ，Results and Analysis, presents the report o f the major findings o f the research including statistical analysis and discussion. Chapter five, Conclusion, summarizes the main issues o f the whole thesis including implications for non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC ， recommendations, and final conclusion. 5 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter includes definitions o f learning and teaching styles, dimensions o f learning styles, relationship between learning and teaching styles, relationship between learning styles and learning strategies, brief descriptions o f previous research on learning and teaching styles in EFL classroom with the discussions about match/ mismatch between those measured by various instruments, and the summary. 2.1. D efinitions o f learning and teaching styles 2.1.1. Definitions o f learning style Language learning styles have been paid a great deal o f attention and have also been the focus o f language studies since Reid’ s influential work on the topic was public in 1987 (Peacock, 2001). However, it is not an easy task to identify and define different learning styles because learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o f numerous elements as Corbett and Smith (1984， p. 212) state that: Learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o f numerous elements; thus, at the outset, the experimenter is faced with the difficult task o f having to decide which dimensions of learning style to elucidate and which interactions might be meaningful, in a practical sense, in understanding their contribution to achievement. There are many definitions o f learning styles in the literature, thus, identifying and defining the vast number o f learning styles can be an enormous task. For example, according to Cross (1976)，learning styles are defined as the characteristic ways that individuals collect, organize, and transform information into useful knowledge. Learning style is consistent across a wide variety o f tasks. Learning style has a considerable influence on getting information and solving problems. Comet (1983， p. 9) declares that “ learning styles is consistent pattern o f behavior but with a certain range o f individual variability. Styles then are overall patterns that give a general direction to learning behavior” . That means an individual’ s learning style is stable, but to some extent it has the tendency to vary according to him or her. Besides, leaning style o f a student is indicated to be a significant role in guiding his/ her own learning. 6 From a psychological viewpoint, learning style is defined as “ a consistent way o f functioning that reflects underlying causes o f behavior” (Keefe, 1979，p. 499). However, from a phenomenological viewpoint, Gregore and Ward (1977， p. 19) state that learning style “ consists o f distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues about the mediation abilities o f individuals. In operational terms, people through their characteristic sets o f behavior cte ir us how their minds relate to the world and therefore, how they le arn， ， . There is a similarity in Hunt’ s definition (1979， p. 27) in which he thinks a learning style “ describes a student in terms o f those educational conditions under which he is most likely to learn. Learning style describes how a student learns, not what he has learned， ， . According to Keefe and Languis (1983， p. 3) learning styles are considered as “ the composite o f characteristic, cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators o f how a learner perceives, interacts with，and responds to the learning environment” . It means an individual’ s style remains unchangeable. Besides, learning style o f a student refers to his/ her own attitudes and manner, and his/ her own awareness o f his/ her own learning situation. This is also mentioned in the definition by O’Neil (1990)，which implies that learning styles are considered as patterns o f cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators o f how learners perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environment. There is no double that the complexity o f learning process exists and learning styles used by learners without their own awareness in responding to different learning conditions. And according to Reid (1995， p. 34-35)，“ each person’ s learning styles (including or her language learning style) contains a variety o f dimensions about which research exists: sensory preference; fieid-independence or field-dependence (or fieldsensitivity); reflection or impulsivity; and objective/ impersonal or subjective/ emphatic orientation” . In summary, an individual’s learning style can be defined in many ways, including, “ the complex manner in which, and conditions under which, learners most efficiently and most effectively perceive, process, store, and recall what they are attempting to learn” (James and Galbraith, 1985， p. 127). Therefore, an individual’ s learning style should be flexible in order to be actively adapted to various learning situations as Ellis (1994， p. 499) asserted that “ learner training is aimed to help learners explore their learning styles to cope with different learning tasks, rather than to stimulate them to change them.” 7 According to Reid (1987)，learning styles are considered as variations among learners using one or more senses to understand, organize and retain experience, which means leaning styles differ according to various composite o f learners’ abilities in their learning process. Learning style is a consistent way o f functioning that reflects cultural behavior patterns and, like other behaviors influenced by cultural experiences, may be revised as a result o f training or changes in learning experiences. Learning styles are thus ’’moderately strong habits rather than intractable biological attributesM(Reid, 1987， p. 100). Also, learning style is defined as “ an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way o f absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1987: iix), or the term “ learning style” refers to a person’ s general approach to learning and problem-solving (Reid, 1995). Reid (1998, p. ix) asserts that “ learning styles are internally based characteristics, often not perceived or consciously used by learners, for the intake and comprehension o f new information” . Among the various definitions o f learning styles, the definition by Reid (1998) is now the most widely accepted (Peacock, 2001). The definition by Reid (1998) seems the most comprehensive, thus, it is chosen for the current study. 2.1.2 Definitions o f teaching style It is difficult to define what a teaching style is, as there is as yet no definitive definition o f teaching styles widely agreed upon by researchers. Besides, it seems that few studies have investigated the teaching styles o f language teachers, in a consequence; there are not as many definitions o f teaching styles as the ones o f learning styles. However, there have been many attempts to define teaching styles that reflect the development in thinking in language teaching and learning. For example, Gregore (1979) implies that teaching style consists o f an instructor’ s personal behavior and the media used to transmit or receive data to or from the learner. In addition to that, an instructor’ s teaching style in the classroom describes his/ her philosophical beliefs Brookfield (1988). However, teaching style is defined by Fisher and Fisher (1979， p. 246) as ua pervasive way o f approaching the learners that might be consistent with several methods o f teachin g， ， . This definition emphasizes the importance o f teaching methods and the ability o f the teacher to select the right approach for the class. Teaching styles tend to be equated with teaching approaches, as that was the mainstay o f language teacher training. 8 According to Kaplan and Kies (1993), teaching style consists o f a teacher’ s personal behaviors and the media used to transmit data or receive it from the learner, which means teaching style stresses the teacher’s behavior and media use which affect the delivery o f the instruction. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the progress o f a learner is somewhat dependent on the teaching style o f his or her teacher. According to Conti (1989)，teaching style can be described as the overall traits and qualities that a teacher displays in the classroom and they are consistent for various situations. Whereas, according to Peacock (2001， p. 7)，second language teaching styles are defined as "natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) o f teaching new information and skills in the classroom” . There has now been better understanding o f the complexities that influence the way a teacher teaches in class, a teacher’ s teaching style is considered as a result o f his/ her past learning and teaching experience, present frame o f mind and body, and future plans and actions (Connelly & Clandinin, 1998). It is implied that teaching style is high individualistic. However, Peacock (2001) asserts that teaching styles can be identified, and this is an assumption that this study adheres to. It has been proposed that teachers often teach their students the same way they were taught or they learned (Oxford ,1990; Cheng, 1995) or emulate teachers they admired (Kinsella, 1995; Jordan, 1997). That means teacher’s teaching style often reflects their learning style (Oxford, 1990a). For this study, teaching style is defined as a language teaching and learning theories and practice that the teachers believe in and subscribe to in their teaching performance. In the current study, the researcher was interested in finding out what the teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC are. This is important because teachers’ awareness o f their own teaching style helps them to be more effective and then they would be flexible and adjust their teaching styles so as to accommodate the diverse learning styles o f the students in their class. 2.2. Dimensions o f learning styles Besides a great number o f different definitions o f learning styles, various classifications o f learning styles have also been conducted. Many researchers suggest that most people have only six to fourteen strongly preferred learning styles, though over twenty have been categorized (Reid, 1998; Shipman & Shipman, 1985). In addition, below 9