Conclusion of Learning Nuances - Dissertation Example

?Conclusion Summary of the Thesis For the first research question on ascertaining the main preferences in learning styles of female and male seventh-and eight-graders studying in prep schools located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who have low reading achievement scores, it was found that male seventh graders have a marked preference for multi-learning styles irregardless of their reading achievement, specifically the quad style. Females, meanwhile, generally showed much greater correlation between low reading achievement scores and preference for multi-learning – a finding also observed among both male and female eighth graders, and also for the whole sample. Moreover, in terms of the influence of learning style preference on reading achievement, it was found likewise that neither gender or grade level was found to have much effect on RAAF or FT scores, nor did these scores affect VARK7G learning style categories. Meanwhile, gender and grade level were found to have a significant relationship with reading achievement, while gender and VARK7G learning styles in turn correlated with the dependent variables. RAAF and FT scores were also found to differ greatly based on gender. Grade and gender were found to be significant factors, especially with respect to reading achievement. Meanwhile, gender and multi-single learning styles were likewise found to have a significant relationship. Gender was also found to affect FT and RAAF scores. While males were found to be affected greatly by grades and VARK7G categories, the same could not be said for their female counterparts. Their learning styles in RAAF were also less error-prone, and particular learning styles were said to be more or less effective for males than females. All in all, learning styles are said to differ not only based on one’s gender, but also on age and grade level – which is why teachers need to vary their lesson plans according to these considerations. Research Question 3 aimed to determine if there are significant differences between males and females in terms of learning style. The study found that at least 1.6% of the variance in learning styles is due to gender, and it has also been observed that males and females alike tend to prefer multi-learning style. All in all, the gender-based differences in learning style preference are marginal at best, with both genders choosing the quad and aural styles as their most and least preferred learning styles, respectively. Research Question 4 asks the following: In Arabic reading classes, do teaching strategies significantly affect reading achievement among students? The TRSQ is divided into subscales referring to reading instruction (RI), reading resources and types of text (RR), reading activities and behaviour (RA), development of reading comprehension skills or strategies (DR) and assessment (AS). All these subscales have some impact on one’s reading achievement (RAAF and FT), a relationship which is said to hint at significant correlations between RAAF and both RR and RA, as well as a significant negative correlation with RI. DR and AS were found to be extraneous factors, while FT was also found to be correlated to both RR and RA – and unrelated to teaching strategies DR and AS. Research Question 5 is as follows: What are the relationships between the students’ preferred teaching reading strategies and their reading achievement scores? The accuracy of TRSQ in terms of its relationship with reading achievement was judged by means of Hierarchical multiple regression, with steps corresponding to reading instruction (RI); reading instruction (RI) and reading resources and types of text (RR); reading instruction (RI), reading resources and types of text (RR) and reading activities and behaviour (RA); reading instruction (RI), reading resources and types of text (RR), reading activities and behaviour (RA), development of reading comprehension skills or strategies (DR); reading instruction (RI), reading resources and types of text (RR), reading activities and behaviour (RA), development of reading comprehension skills or strategies (DR) and assessment (AS). The last model, which comprised 5.4% of the dependent variable’s variance, was found to be the most ideal combination. Finally, for Research Question 6 on the relationship between the components of the students’ preferred reading teaching strategies and their preferred learning style, it was found that Chi-square analysis failed to confirm significant relationships with respect to the multi-single learning style and RI, nor were there any such correlations among RR, RA, and DR and AS – or between VARK7G style and RA, RI, DR. However, a significant relationship was confirmed to exist between learning style and both RR and AS. Conclusions The current study concludes that low and high achievement groups differ mainly in terms of cognitive styles (McFadden, 1986; Guillory, 1990; Stash 2007; Liu and Ginther 1999), which is to say that they differ in terms of how they perceive and process information (Hunsaker 1981; Woolfolk 2001). Hunsaker (1981) also considers learning style as falling under the heading of cognitive styles, referring specifically to how one acquires information and then takes it into account when it comes to learning and problem solving. The general idea is that while underachievers tend to prefer multi-learning styles, the quad learning style is in turn the trademark of an achiever. Moreover, the study concludes that gender does influence learning style preference and reading achievement. As noted by Loo (2002) as well as Cotterill, Jackson and Letherby (2007), more studies are needed in order to come up with more substantial findings. Wehrwin et al (2007) were able to come up with rather interesting results upon using the VARK learning model and questionnaire in their study, while Park (1997a) found that, among Mexican, Armenian-American, Korean and Anglo students, females and males respectively leaned towards kinaesthetic and tactile learning. Meanwhile, the findings from Lincoln et al (2006) were that males tended to rely on notes while females tended to listen more. Finally, Dobson (2009), Kia et al (2009) and Garland and Martin (2005) all agreed that gender is in fact a deciding factor when it comes to learning style preference. All in all, teaching strategies were found to affect reading achievement, hinting at the experiential nature of the learning process and at the dynamic nature of learning style preference (Kolb, 1984; Sirin & Guzel, 2006). As noted by Fox and Ronkowski (1997), teachers who take this into account make learning a much easier task for their students. Kolb (1976, 1984) enumerates these learning stages as Concrete Experience (CE), Reflection Observation (RO); Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE). CE refers to one’s preference for firsthand lessons, while RO refers to one’s tendency to think and reflect. AC pertains to theoretical emphasis, while AE refers to preference for actual experience. Depending on whether one is a diverger, assimilator, converger or accommodator, one will naturally prefer one of these learning stages over all else (Bell & Griffin, 2007). Yet even then, says Dornvei (2005), everyone will at least be capable of all four learning types to some extent – which is exactly why the teacher needs to be able to assess which learning type his students tend to prefer the most. Culture also comes into play in shaping learning nuances, due to the nature of culture as a set of norms, beliefs and values meant to guide human behaviour (Kennedy, 2002). Since today’s classroom is all but bound to have a varied cultural background (Friedman, 2006), knowledge on the subject should be a definite plus (Guild, 1994). It is therefore unsurprising that researchers such as Dunn et al (1990), Tseng (1993) and Ewing and Yong (1992) all focused on different culture groups with the intent of analysing the influence one’s culture had on his learning style preferences. At any rate, Reid (1987) has already confirmed the influence of culture in at least one field, namely that of language school, while Auyeung and Sands (1996) were able to note that students do indeed possess different learning strengths and preferences depending on their cultural backgrounds. Given how consistent these researchers are in their findings that culture does indeed affect one’s learning style preferences, it would be highly expedient for teachers to take the cultural background of their students into account when coming up with lesson plans. Reading strategies seem to be unrelated to learning style preference, yet it would still be advisable for teachers to adapt based on the learning preferences of their students in order to better motivate them (O’Connor, 1997; Guild and Garger, 1998). However, as pointed out by Whittington and Connors (2005), the problem is that most teachers tend to take a one-size-fits-all approach to lesson plans, and rarely if ever deign to include individualized considerations. Studies by Isom (1997), Olson (2000) and Lindsay (1999) aimed to correlate learning styles, teaching styles and academic achievement with each other, to mixed results.. O’Brien et al (1994) somehow deviated from the standard conclusion in that theirs read how students would benefit when their teacher’s teaching methods conflicted with their learning styles. But overall, given the lack of fit between learning style preference and teaching style or typology, such relationships can easily be called complex. All in all, learning styles are dynamic and are known to change and adapt over time, thanks in part to how individuals tend to refine, modify, adapt and improve on their learning preferences and methods (Church, 2004; Robotham, 1999). That said, biological factors have a way of either hastening or delaying more drastic changes (Creative Learning Systems, 2010). In fact, barring direct intervention, one’s learning style preferences tend to be come more or less fixed during his teenage years (Cohen, 1984). Church (2004) attributes such a phenomenon to the ever-evolving and growing nature of the human faculties of auditory and visual perception, though it is not quite as clear as to how these factors serve to impact on learning style preference (Macduff, 2005). The dynamic and ever-changing nature of one’s learning style preference should give an idea as to how important past experience are in the learning process. As noted by Doolan and Honigsfeld (2000), one’s learning style preferences are only affected by biological factors to a certain extent, while one’s development will account for the rest. Barbe and Milone (1981), have also confirmed how students really do tend to adapt and change their learning preferences as they get older. Such findings, however, are refuted by Copenhaver (1979) who instead notes that while students may in fact have problems finding their preferred learning styles earlier on, they tend to get over such problems quickly. Reid (1987) stresses the benefits to be had were students to be aware of their own learning style preferences, and of the ability they have to adapt and grow as needed. From there, it becomes easier for them to make the necessary changes to their learning preferences, doubly so when they have experience operating in a wide range of learning environments (Hayes and Allinson, 1996). Brown (2008) specifically upholds reading as one of the core skills needed for proper learning, and for success in life. Armbruster, Lehr and Osbrn (2003) say that this process has a great deal to do with learning style preference, and is in fact a whole lot more complicated than it looks. One is said to be more productive when he reads, and even more so if his approach to reading is one he actually prefers and is comfortable with (Carbo, 1987). All in all, considering how learning styles and teaching strategies have not conclusively been proven to be significantly related, the teacher should be ready to try any and all possible approaches – which will be detailed in the following paragraphs. The reading approach is fairly straightforward, and refers to how teachers teach reading skills to their students, making use of either the phonics or whole language approach. The first method relies on teaching students to associate letters with sounds, as dictated by a set of abstract rules (Carver, 2000). According to McGinness (2004), this method works particularly well whenever one comes across a word for the first time. And since teachers are responsible for imparting and delivering lessons to their students, these students in turn need to be able to understand how words sound like and how they are put together. Reyhner (2008) calls this the ‘bottom up’ approach, and was especially popular from the 50s to the 80s. And as Trachtenburg (1990) also points out, those who learn this way are able to maximize their opportunities for what they are worth. Useful as this method is, though, it is far from the only viable one. For instance, according to Adams (1990) and Tassoni, Beith, Bulman and Eldridge (2007), synthetic and analytical phonics are both methods that can be used in its placed. Lewis and Ellis (2006) characterize the former as a method most commonly used in a child’s earlier, formative years, and has him spelling and slowly learning how to pronounce words. The latter, meanwhile, puts letters together to form words, and words to form sentences. Analogy phonics is also viable, and as explained by Pressley, Gaskins and Fingeret (2006) as well as Morrow, Rueda and Lapp (2009), involves use of phonograms. Agnew (2005) tells us that teachers generally teach reading by having students link sounds and phonemes together, and that such a method hinges on how phonemically aware these students are. Hempenstall (2003) further explains that the word’s structure is emphasized over its meaning. The whole language approach can be called a ‘top down’ theory in that it teachers language as a whole, and has in fact been praised by researchers such as Goodman (2005) and Lapp, Brock, Fisher and Flood (2007) as arguably the best way of teaching students how to read. Clay (1990) also tells us about how the term ‘whole language’ is more than just a mere phrase, but can also be characterized as a teaching movement, a philosophy, a method, a way of teaching, and a belief system. Related terms as cited by Ellis (2005) include integration and natural learning, but the concept of whole language itself is rather more difficult to explain. This being the case, it is regrettable yet hardly surprising that researchers have yet to clearly define this approach, considering that to even attempt to do so is already quite a challenge (Batenhorst, 1994). Taylor’s (2007) concept of it is that of a socio-political teachers’ movement, while Eagles (1995) instead conceptualizes it as an alternative philosophy student’s language acquisition. Clay’s (1990) study on the subject used four different instruments to obtain the conclusion that this approach benefits both students and teachers, and in more ways than one. The term reading resources refers to both print and online sources. And while different students may have varying opinions as to which of these they prefer, the fact is that books are something no school should ever be caught dead without (Pang et al, 2003). Juel (2006) explains this in part by noting how a good part of vocabulary is usually obtained from these books, which also serve to whet one’s appetite for knowledge, thinking and learning – a notion also upheld by McKeown and Beck (2006). Justic, Meier and Walpole (2005) cast some doubt on the idea of children being able to appreciate written text, but evidence has yet to suggest the opposite. Anderson et al. (1985) explain that if ever children seem averse to reading, it is because they feel that they are being underestimated, if only because there are those who may not be as literate as they are. But then, if literarily-challenged individuals can be included in one’s class, it is equally likely that any given teacher will come across some advanced students sooner or later in his career (Rickford, 2001). Reis et al (2004) go on to explain that the problem is not so much a lack of advanced material, but rather an unexplainable reluctance on the part of the teachers to use it. The study likewise concludes that reading comprehension is definitely an essential skill among students (Aarnoutes and Leeuwe, 1998). Specifically, they need to be able to grasp what is being said by the text, but also be able to read subtext with the help of his knowledge and past experiences (Harris and Hodges, 1995). Experience in particular has been stressed by Pang et al (2003), while Durkin (2004) and Leu and Kinzer (1999) downplay this in favour of actually understanding the given text. While it is of course inevitable that one will build his vocabulary in school, the home environment is more responsible for its formation (Weizman and Snow, 2001). According to Beck and McKeown (1991), vocabulary refers to much more than mere knowledge of a word’s meaning, but has also been defined by Lehr et al (2004) as referring to actual knowledge of both written and spoken words. Of course one would have a rather limited vocabulary upon first entering school; the vocabulary he possesses at that point often depends on the mother with whom the child generally has the most contact, though other factors such as TV and interpersonal interaction may also come into play (Snow, 1993; Taylor, 1995). It is unsurprising that vocabulary has a major, major role in academic achievement, if only for the simple reason that having a wider vocabulary makes it easier to understand and acquire more information and knowledge – and in the process, understanding (Iman, 2009). Bromley (2007) suggests a concept called K-W-L which refers to what students know, would like to know, and already know. Juel and Deffes (2004), though, instead suggest that simply discussing the word itself would already be able to allow students to spell it out and understand what it means. Flynt and Cooter (2005) have noted the asset posed by graphic organizers in this task, and Charlesworth and Paul (2004) further speculate to the aid provided by poetry and other forms of literature. And as Armbruster et al (2003) point out, students are just as likely to pick up new words in everyday conversation as they are in the classroom. Fluency, meanwhile, is how quickly one can read a given text while maintaining accuracy, and if the NICHD (2000) is to be believed, is among the five skills every good reader has at his disposal. Binder (1996) attests to this definition, which Worthy and Broaddus (2002) say demonstrates itself in one’s phrasing, smoothness and expressiveness. Ming and Dukes (2008) go on to note how a wide range of definitions can apply, and note how fluency all but demands implicit recall of words, and that one can read these words properly and figure out what they are supposed to mean. Samuels (2002) has noted the significant relationship of fluency to comprehension, both of which Armbruster et al (2003) go on to correlate to word recognition. Guyne (2009) emphasizes the importance of acknowledging these factors especially where literarily-challenged students are concerned. As noted byDeFord (1991) as well as Blum and Koskinen (1991), fluency is best acquired by children at their own pace, reading texts and material they actually feel comfortable with. Kuhn and Stahle (2000) have explain how fluency instruction is most effective on very young children, though Manning (2004) reminds us that fluency in silent reading does not necessarily mean that one will still be fluent when it comes to oral reading. According to Bratovic et al (2010), reading habits are hardwired into one’s lifelong learning, while Ogunrombi and Adio (1995) go on to explain exactly why people read. Students have been described by Taberski (2000) as being transitional, early, fluent or emergent readers, each of which is said to have their own way of acquiring new words. That children are reading less often these days is truly alarming, and is truly a cause for concern (Green, 2008). Findings from Poppe (2005) indicate that today’s middle school students tend to prefer playing games over reading books, while McKenna (1986) points out how these students of course each have their own idea as to what kinds of things they would like to read. For instance, books on sports, war, machines and science were more popular among boys than girls, who instead went after books on love, romance, growing up and family. It should be a simple matter to tell good readers apart from poor ones, since those falling under the first group can often read accurately, understanding and coming up with their own insights with ease (Pang et al, 2003). As explained by Pressley (2002), such readers are already clear on what reading objectives they hope to attain, and are able to draw on stock knowledge and past experience in order to enrich their reading experience. These readers are also capable on reflecting on what has been read, gleaning lessons from the text that can then be applied to everyday life. Carbo (2008) also tells us how such readers also tend to find comprehension an easy task, and that such readers may sometimes take long reading a given text because of a desire to completely understand it (Guyne, 2009). Alderson (2000) tells us how these guys commonly know 10,000-100,000 words. On the other hand, poor readers often have poor phonological awareness (Ziegler and Goswami, 2005), and are not able to recognize words quite as easily. Thus, their comprehension suffers, and they become noticeably disinclined and dismotivated with respect to reading (Chard, Vaughn and Tyler, 2002). Strengths of the Study The present study may be commended for certain strengths. For one, the research has very high and solid internal validity owing to the ample number of students who participated in the research. The study has likewise made use of sufficient and acceptable theoretical frameworks and variable assessments. These have also contributed to the internal validity of the outcomes garnered from the study. Moreover, the use of surveys have also lent expediency to the data gathering and data analyses phases of the study, which are key advantages of the survey method. One limitation which may be cited is the lack of supporting qualitative material such as interviews or focus group discussion which may be key to interpreting or supplementing the results garnered from the survey instruments. One other limitation was the fact that the study adopted a cross-sectional design. There are advantages in using a longitudinal research design given the nature of the variables being investigated. Recommendations The current study found that gender, culture, and learning styles do have an influence on reading achievement. Given this, it may be worthwhile for teachers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to find out the best strategies that will motivate learners and enhance their reading achievement. Currently, the approach of some teachers may be too generic or not with due consideration to the learning styles and preferences of their students. Comprehensive reading assessments may be a good starting point for dovetailing reading interventions for Reading students in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This may explain exactly how teachers gauge how far along their students are, and in the process determine what in their lesson plan could use some fine-tuning towards increasing their reading achievement. Teachers need to observe their students closely for behaviours of good readers, and then giving them appropriately challenging material. This may be done by the administration of a diagnostic test aimed at determining what one’s current strengths and weaknesses are, or monitoring reading progress. Phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension are areas that may be systematically assessed. Teachers in Jeddah may choose depending on their peculiar situation. Future Research While the current study is extensive, there are yet other interesting variables that may be investigated to have a more comprehensive assessment of the factors that influence reading achievement. Among those that have not been tackled in the current study are other demographic variables such as income level of parents. The influence of age on learning styles may be further validated in future studies, as the grade levels that have been investigated in the present study do not significantly differ age-wise (i.e. Grades 7 and 8). The study also lends support to the conclusion that reading achievement is influenced a a number of factors and these include home environment, economics, motivation, classmate and diversity. The first two of which are the most important of the lot, and have not been covered in the present research. Socio-economic status comes into play in that low income families tend to suffer from illiteracy, due to the focus on making a living coming at the cost of neglected education. Home environment is also involved and merits further investigation, Parents who read to their children on a regular basis would rarely go wrong. Exposing children to reading material around the house would be an even bigger plus, and this may be further delved into in future researches. Read More