Teaching and learning styles zona proxima

Teaching
and learning
zona
crossroads próxima
María Guadalupe
García Castañeda
Mahela Sofía Figueroa Juris

Enrique Grau. Autorretarto, 1945.
Óleo sobre lienzo, 57 x 50 cm

zona próxima
MARÍA GUADALUPE GARCÍA CASTAÑEDA
Revista del Instituto COORDINADORA CENTRO DE LENGUAS, UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA BOLIVARIANA
de Estudios Superiores ( magupi@upbmonteria.edu.co)
en Educación MAHELA SOFÍA FIGUEROA JURIS
Universidad del Norte PROFESORA DE INGLÉS, UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA BOLIVARIANA
( masfiju@hotmail.com)
nº 8 diciembre, 2007
ISSN 1657-2416

En este trabajo se describe una

RESUMEN
investigación evaluativa cuya meta fue
averiguar los estilos de aprendizajes de
los estudiantes y del profesor y verificar
si el estilo de enseñanza de este último
coincidía con los estilos de aprendizajes
de los estudiante para determinar si
el aprendizaje y la motivación están
presentes cuando existe una coincidencia
entre los estilos de aprendizaje y This paper is an evaluative research
enseñanza study which is aimed to investigating
Se tomó como muestra un grupo the learning styles of students and
de Inglés Uno conformado por 32 teachers and whether the teacher’s
estudiantes y su profesor que pertenecen teaching style matches with the
a una universidad privada localizada en la students´ learning styles to determine
costa norte de Colombia. Para recolectar if learning and motivation are present
información sobre los cuestionamientos when there is a crossroad between
de esta búsqueda, al grupo se le learning and teaching styles.
aplicaron diversos instrumentos. The focus group asked to participate
Analizados los resultados se encontró in this study was selected from a
que el estilo de aprendizaje más
ABSTRACT

private university in the north coast of
representativo fue el Táctil, seguido por el Colombia; the group comprised thirty
Auditivo y Kinestésico. Este hallazgo no es two students who are studying first
similar a ningún otro encontrado en este level English and their teacher.
campo. Data was gathered from many
Hubo coincidencia entre los estilos de different sources. From the
aprendizaje de los estudiantes y el estilo information gathered, it was found
de enseñanza del profesor. También se that the tactile learning style was
confirmó que cuando existe una relación the most representative. This finding
entre estos estilos la motivación está is not similar to any other research
presente. done in this field. The Tactile style
Estilos de aprendizaje mayor,
palabras clave: was followed by the Auditory and
menor y negativo, estilos de enseñanza. Kinesthetic styles which were
represented by the same percentage.
There was a match between teaching
and learning styles. According to the
data, it was confirmed that when there
is a crossroad between teaching and
learning motivation is present.
key words: Major, minor and negligible
learning styles, teaching styles.

F E C H A D E R E C E P C I Ó N : AGOSTO 15 DE 2007
F E C H A D E ACEPTAC I Ó N : OCTUBRE 14 DE 2007

María Guadalupe, García Castañeda, Mahela Sofía Figueroa Juris

INTRODUCTION b) What are the major – minor and
negligible learning styles of the

H
ow individuals learn or seven students and the teacher
understand new information chosen for this research?
and their preferred methods c) What is the teacher’s teaching style?
for learning have been subjected to a d) Is there a match between students´
great deal of attention. It has also been learning styles and the teacher’s
the focus of a number of L2 studies teaching style?
in recent years since Reid’s inﬂuential
work on the topic was published in This topic is important to us as
1987. teachers because we need to know
Research on learning styles, has what our students´ learning styles
provided teachers and also students are in order to create an optimal
with a different view of learning and environment for the learners and also
how to apply it to classrooms and for us in the classroom.
lives. Among the authors that have
views regarding this topic are: Mathew LITERATURE REVIEW
Peacock (2001), Rao Zhenhui (2001),
Joy Reid (1995), Rita and Kenneth For many years researchers have
Dunn (1993), Richard Felder (1995) investigated the relationship between
among others. how individuals learn and how
Educators and researchers have teachers´ inﬂuence that learning
developed several instruments to process.
assess students´ learning styles, but Research on learning and teaching
literature regarding this topic is full of styles has provided teachers and
unresolved issues, both theoretical and students with a different view of
practical (Wilson, 1998, p. 3). On the learning and teaching and how to
other hand, these instruments have apply them in classrooms. Among the
been a great help in identifying these authors that have done research on
styles in students and also exploring this topic are:
them with the aim of improving the
learning and teaching processes. • Mathew Peacock (2001) studied
According to the above mentioned the correlation between learning
information, the purpose of this project and teaching styles based on Reid’s
was to identify: hypotheses. He found out that a
mismatch between teaching and
a) What are the leaning styles of a learning styles causes learning
First Level English group at a private failure, frustration and demotivation.
university located in the North He also found that learners favored
Coast of Colombia? kinesthetic and auditory and

80 Z O N A P R Ó X I M A N º 8 (2007) PÁGS 78-93

teaching and learning crossroads

disfavored individual and group learning processes. Some people
styles, while teachers favored may rely on visual presentations,
kinesthetic, group and auditory others prefer spoken language;
styles. still others may respond better to
hands-on activities. It is evident that
• Rao Zhenhui (2001) analyzed people learn differently and these
matching teaching styles with differences in learning abound
learning styles in East Asian ESL/EFL settings.” She also said
contexts. He diagnosed learning that matching teaching styles with
styles and developed self-aware learning styles give all learners an
EFL learners. He mentioned that equal chance in the classroom
an effective matching between and builds student self-awareness.
teaching and learning styles can She also categorizes learning styles
only be achieved when teachers into six types: Visual, Auditory,
are aware of their learners´ Kinesthetic, tactile, group, and
needs, capacities, potentials, and Individual.
learning style preferences. He also
mentioned that it is necessary to • Felder (1995:28) said that
alter the teaching styles to create a “the way in which an individual
teacher-student style matching. characteristically acquires, retains,
and retrieves information are
• Rita and Kenneth Dunn (1993) collectively termed the individuals´
studied how people learn and learning styles”. He also added that
they noticed that some students mismatches often occur between
achieved only through selective learning styles in students in a
methods. They mentioned many language class and the teaching
elements that inﬂuence learning style of the instructor with
styles: environmental, emotional, unfortunate effects on the quality of
sociological and physical elements. the students´ learning and on their
They also mentioned nine elements attitudes towards the class and the
that inﬂuence a teaching style: subject.
attitudes towards instructional
programs among others. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

• Joy Reid (1995) said that “Learning No matter what kind of learners
styles are internally based they are - their cultural and language
characteristics of individuals for background, previous experience,
intake of understanding of new individual learning styles - students are
information. All learners have faced with an enormous task when
individual attributes related to the they learn a new language. Being

Z O N A P R Ó X I M A N º 8 (2007) PÁGS 78-93 81


more aware of how to approach this Throughout this research we used
task and how to do it as effectively Reid’s work (1987-1995) about
as possible – Learning Styles and categorization of leaning styles and
Teaching Styles must match to obtain Peacok (2001) who studied the
a good student’s and teacher’s correlation between Learning and
performance in the classroom. Teaching Styles based on Reid’s
Reid defined Language Learning hypotheses. We used these models
Styles, as a student’s preferred method due to the transcendence they have in
or mode of learning and Style Eble the learning and teaching fields.
(1980) said that a Teaching Style We suggest that a Match between
represents those enduring personal Teaching and Learning Styles in a
qualities and behaviors that appear in L2 classroom creates a motivating
how we conduct our classes. Thus, it environment that aids the learning
is both something that defines us, that and teaching processes. Although
guides and directs our instructional
this aspect is under -investigated in
processes and that has effects on
Colombia, there are a lot of theories
students and their ability to learn.
that support that a mismatching
There are many theories about
between teaching and learning affect
Learning Styles and Teaching Styles:
negatively these processes. We
Reid (1995) is now the most widely
propose to do more research about
accepted, as is her categorization of
styles into six types: 1- Visual Learners this topic and inform to EFL teachers
(they prefer seeing things in writing), about it and to involve them as
2- Auditory Learners (they prefer participants in this type of studies.
listening), 3- Kinesthetic Learners (they
prefer active participation/experiences), METHODOLOGY
4- Tactile Learners (they prefer hands-
on work), 5- Group Learners (they A. Participants
prefer studying or working with others)
and 6- Individual Learners (they prefer This research was carried out at a
studying or working alone). According private university in the North Coast
to Reid’s major hypotheses about this of Colombia. It is a catholic university,
topic she said that “all students have located 8 kilometers outside the city
their own learning styles and learning and is made up of 12 faculties. Law
strengths and weaknesses” and that and Social Studies is one of them.
“a mismatch between teaching and The Language Center belongs to this
learning styles causes learning failure, faculty. It offers four basic and two
frustration and demotivation” and specific English levels to the students
she also said that “learning could be of this university. The basic levels are
improved when there is an awareness not compulsory while the specific ones
of a wider variety of learning styles”. are.



A first level English group and B. Methods
its teacher were involved in this
investigation. The group of students In this Evaluation research, a
was made up of 22 males and 10 quantitative and qualitative descriptive
females. They were between 16 methodology was applied. A Heuristic
and 21 years old. The learners were orientation was given to this task
studying: computing engineering, because it was important to know the
mechanical engineering, architecture structure and essence of the students´
and law. They belonged to 1 to 5 experiences, feelings, thoughts and
socio-economic backgrounds. The how they interpret them.
first and second socioeconomic Data about Learning Styles,
backgrounds correspond to people students´ motivation, experiences with
who have low incomes. The third and English as a foreign language and
fourth ones correspond to people matching Leaning Styles with Teaching
who have average incomes and the style were gathered from the following
fifth and sixth ones are related to instruments:
high incomes. Seven students were
chosen for this research in order 1. Reid’s Perceptual Learning
to investigate their learning styles, Style Preference Questionnaire
the teacher’s learning and teaching (PLSPQ, 1987):
styles and the match between them. 2. A video-Taped Class to ascertain
One student was 21 years old; the students´ preferences to learn and
others were 16, 17 and 19 years old. the teacher’s teaching style.
Four of them were in first semester 3. Class tasks related to learning
and the others were in second, styles were developed throughout
third, and seventh semesters. One the semester.
studied architecture, two law, and 4. Field Notes were written during the
four computing engineering. Four of semester.
them liked English; two liked it a little 5. A written survey
while one did not like it at all. (The 6. Tape-recorded interviews related
aforementioned information was taken to learning styles.
from a written questionnaire answered 7. Students´ evaluation of the class.
in class by all the students). 8. Peer observation
The teacher was a female who was
28 years old. She studied English in C. Data analysis
the United States and had a college
degree in Business administration. Before collecting the data students
She has been teaching English in this were asked permission to participate in
university since 2003. She has also this research and they agreed to do it.
taught in basic and specific levels. Their names were changed to maintain



anonymity. First, quantitative scores experiences with English as a foreign
were calculated for all questionnaire language and if there was a match
data in order to find out the student’s or mismatch between teaching and
and teacher learning styles. With this learning styles.
instrument learners identified the way After collecting the data, patterns
they learn best and prefer to learn. It or coincidences were categorized
was composed by thirty statements according to the findings.
that cover Reid’s six learning style
preferences, with five expressions for RESULTS
each one of them. Students answered
them as they applied to their study of Learning styles
English on a 5-point scale: a- focus group

Strongly
Agree Undecided Disagree
Strongly The results from Reid’s PLSPQ
agree disagree
questionnaire applied to the focus
5 4 3 2 1
group and its teacher are given in
tables and figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
Reid (1995) classified learning 6. Table 1 and figure 1 show that
styles as Major, Minor or Negligible. 50% of the class preferred the visual
Major is a preferred leaning style, style (major) and the other 50%
Minor is one in which learners can still (minor) can still function well in that
function well, and negligible means style. This can also be assured when
they may have difficulty learning. students want to see everything the
When the numerical value was teacher says written on the board. It
assigned to the corresponding learning also occurred with class handouts and
style statement, the numbers were activities in which this style could be
added to obtain a total score and then seen. e.g. Role-plays, mimics, lotteries
it was multiplied by 2 determining the and readings. None of the students
major, minor or negligible learning had a difficulty when using this style
style. After that, all the results were (negligible)
analyzed to categorize them according
to the aforementioned learning style Table 1
preferences and presented in tables
and figures shown in the findings. POINTS VISUAL
Qualitative data as video-taped NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 0
class, field notes, class tasks, peer MINOR 26 - 36 16
observation, and students´ evaluation MAJOR 38 - 50 16
of the class were utilized to find TOTAL ESTUDIANTES 32
out information related to learning
styles, students´motivation and their



Negligible
0-24
0%

Major
38-50
50%

Minor
26-36
50%

Figure 1. Visual learning style

Table 2 and Figure 2 show that activities done in class. 28% of the
the 63% of the participants´ most participants can still function well in
representative and popular style was this learning style (minor) and 9% of
the Tactile (major), this means that the individuals had difficulty learning in
they learnt by constructing things, that way (negligible).
taking notes, doing projects. This
finding is not similar to any other Table 2
research done in this field. It can
be ascertained that in-class tasks POINTS TACTILE
when learners had to create a poster NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 3
or designing their own family tree, MINOR 26 - 36 9
motivated them since they could MAJOR 38 - 50 20
use different materials such as family TOTAL STUDENTS 32
photos, scissors, markers, glue,
etc and in-class observation, the
teacher noticed that throughout the
semester they used this style in all the



Negligible
0-24
9%

Minor
26-36
28%

Major
38-50
63%

Figure 2. Tactile learning style

Tables and figures 3 and 4 show and 3% may have difficulty learning
that Auditory and Kinesthetic styles had this way (negligible)
the same score of preference among
the students 56% (major learning Table 3
style).This is something our research
has in common with other studies in POINTS AUDITORY
which students liked to role-play and NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 1
listen to their teacher and classmates MINOR 26 - 36 13
speak . This could be corroborated MAJOR 38 - 50 18
during the video-taped class and the TOTAL STUDENTS 32
class tasks when students listened to
tapes, watched films and videos and Table 4
when they rehearsed and presented
activities related to movement, POINTS KINESTHETIC
role-plays,mimics, guessing games, NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 2
touching, and expressing their feelings MINOR 26 - 36 12
physically in which they performed MAJOR 38 - 50 18
very well. 41% of the students can
TOTAL STUDENTS 32
still function well with this style (minor)



Negligible
0-24
3%

Minor
26-36
41%

Major
38-50
56%

Figure 3. Auditory learning style

Negligible
0-24
6%

Minor
Major 26-36
38-50 38%
56%

Figure 4. Kinesthetic leraning style



Table 5 and figure 5 show that Table 6 and figure 6 show that
50% of the students liked to work in the least popular was the Individual,
groups, to share ideas, opinions and though it was not negative. 60% of
knowledge (major learning style) while students liked to work individually
31% of them can still work well in this whereas 31% of them can still
type of learning(minor) and the other function well in this style and the rest
9% had difficulty when learning in of learners (9%) had a negligible
groups (Negative learning style). Group learning style. They had difficulty when
work was a feature that was shown working alone. During oral interviews
by learners throughout the semester they confirmed that they liked to work
in class observation, class tasks and in in groups and they said that they did
the video-taped class. not like to work individually. The same
happened with in class observation;
Table 5 students preferred to work in pairs and
in group. Thus, it can be concluded
POINTS GROUP that although individuals like to work
NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 3 in groups they see themselves as
MINOR 26 - 36 13
individualistic people and this is a
MAJOR 38 - 50 16
TOTAL STUDENTS 32 Colombian culture trait.

Negligible
0-24
9%

Minor
26-36
41%

Major
38-50
50%

Figure 5. Group leraning style



Table 6 b) Target students

POINTS INDIVIDUAL As it was mentioned at the beginning
NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 3 of this task, seven learners were
MINOR 26 - 36 19 chosen to study their major, minor
MAJOR 38 - 50 10 and negligible learning styles. The
TOTAL STUDENTS 2 ﬁndings are shown below:

Negligible
0-24
Major 9%
38-50
31%

Minor
26-36
60%

Figure 6. Individual leraning style

Table 7
Student 1

Puntaje Visual Tactile Auditory Kinesthetic Group Individual

NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 24

MINOR 26 - 36 32 36 34 34

MAJOR 38 - 50 42



Table 8
Student 2


NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24

MINOR 26 - 36 30 34 36 36 34

MAJOR 38 - 50 40

Table 9
Student 3


NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24

MINOR 26 - 36 26 34 34 32 34

MAJOR 38 - 50 42

Table 10
Student 4


NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 24

MINOR 26 - 36 26 26 36 30 30

MAJOR 38 - 50

Table 11
Student 5

Points Visual Tactile Auditory Kinesthetic Group Individual

NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24

MINOR 26 - 36

MAJOR 38 - 50 48 46 38 46 48 38

Table 12
Student 6


NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24

MINOR 26 - 36

MAJOR 38 - 50 40 42 48 50 44 38



Table 13
Student 7


NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24

MINOR 26 - 36

MAJOR 38 - 50 38 48 38 44 46 48

Table 14 shows that the most introduce a new one. Learners were
representative teacher’s learning really interested in both activities as it
style was the Visual, then the tactile could be seen in peer’s observation.
and kinesthetic, then the group and They had fun, laughed a lot and
individual and the least representative participate actively in those activities.
was the auditory, although the last one It was also encountered that in spite
was negative for the teacher, she used of the fact, that the teacher had a
it in class. negligible auditory style, she used it

Table 14
Teacher’s Learning Styles

POINTS Visual Tactile Auditory Kinesthetic Group Individual

NEGLIGIBLE 0 - 24 3

MINOR 26 - 36 36 36

MAJOR 38 - 50 46 42 42

DISCUSSION in her classes. For each one of her
classes, she prepared activities that
It was observed that there was dealt with most of learning styles
a match between teaching and in each one of her classes and as a
learning styles as it was conﬁrmed result she obtained good student’s
in the video -taped class, peer performance and raise student’s
observation of the video and ﬁeld motivation. In other words, a good
notes. In the former instrument, the result can be obtained if a teacher
teacher shifted from one style to keeps a balance between students´
another creating a participating and learning styles and his/her teaching
motivating environment. In this video, style.
two activities were recorded: a role It is relevant to study learning
play and a guessing game that the styles because recent studies have
teacher used to practice a topic and to shown that a match between teaching



and learning styles helps to motivate
students´ process of learning. That
is why teachers should identify their
own teaching styles as well as their
learning styles to obtain better results
in the classroom. The aim is to have a
balanced teaching style and to adapt
activities to meet students´ style and
to involve teachers in this type of
research to assure the results found
in this research study. It is also helpful
to design class tasks in which students
can deal with their different learning
styles and to know what individuals
preferred ways of learning are in
order to determine better teaching
strategies inside the classroom and to
motivate students´ participation in class
by creating activities related to their
learning styles.

Bibliography

STYLE, Eble (1980)
Sunconference.utep.edu/CET aL/resources/
tws/teachingh style.pdf, pp. 95.

DUNN, Rita & DUNN, Kenneth (1993)
Learning Styles/ Teaching styles: Should They
…. Can they… be Matched? Educational
Leadership , 36, 1979, pp 238-244

REID, Joy (1995)
Learning Styles in the EFL/ESL Classroom.
Heinle & Heinle publisher.

FELDER, Richard (1995).
Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign
and Second Language Education. Foreign
Language Annals, 28 (1), pp. 21-31



WILSON, Vicky. (1998)
Learning How They Learn: A Review of
Literature on Learning Style. pdf eric.ed.gov,
p. 3.

ZHENHUI, Rao (2001)
Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles
for ESL/EFL Instruction. The Internet TESL
Journal, Vol VII, No 7, July 2001.

PEACOCK, Matthew (2001)
Match or Mismatch? Learning Styles and
Teaching Styles in EFL. International Journal
of Applied Linguistic, Vol. 11 (1), p. 20.


Teaching and learning styles zona proxima

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Teaching and learning styles zona proxima

Similar to Teaching and learning styles zona proxima (20)

More from guadalupe garcia

More from guadalupe garcia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Teaching and learning styles zona proxima