Each person has different preferences in the ways they deal with and receive information. In other words, they have their own personal learning style preference. Some prefer to integrate with concrete information such as facts and experimental information while others prefer to learn with abstractions such as theories and symbolic information. Some learn better with visual presentation of information and others prefer to learn from verbal explanations. Some prefer to learn by trying things out and by analyzing things and others would rather work alone and reflect on things by themselves. When the learning styles of students in a class match the instructors’ teaching styles, the students will be more likely to become active and have more confidence in learning (Felder and Spurlin, 2005).
Furthermore, Hunts (1964) claimed that a cognitive style ‘match’ meant that the learning environment and cognitive learning style are of interest to students. Several decades ago, Witkin (1956) supported the ‘matching hypothesis.’ He argued that “when students are matched with their preferred instructional mode, achievement and satisfaction with learning will be enhanced” (as cited in Saracho, 2001, p.198). Sarscho (1990) states that the useful learning context is that teachers’ instruction can satisfy and motivate students’ learning styles.
A contemporaneous match assists individuals to apply their skills and to ignore new concepts or methods in facilitating them to tackle the requirement from their surroundings. Distefano (1970) also shows that when students’ cognitive style matches teachers’ teaching style, it would arouse a positive influence on students’ learning performance. In contrast, if teachers’
instruction can not match students’ cognitive style, it may have a negative impact on the students’ learning outcome. Packer and Bain (1978) emphasize the importance of student-teacher compatibility concerning cognitive style. They suggest that teachers are more effective with students who match their cognitive style. In comparison, students learn better and actively when the teachers’ instruction and teaching style can match the students’
cognitive style. An ideal match between the styles of students and teachers may promote the
teaching-learning quality (as cited in Saracho, 2001). These studies cited above reveal that matching teachers’ instructions with students’ cognitive style can enhance teaching and learning performance.
2.3 Relationship between learning style and reading performance
There have been a lot of studies investigating the choices of learner’s learning styles (Akdemir & Koszalka, 2007; Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, & Daley, 2000; Cheng, 2006; Chiu, 2002;
Kinshuk, Liu & Graf, 2009; Miller, 2005; Riazi & Riasati, 2003; Thomas & Mckay, 2010).
Akdemir and Koszalka (2008) conducted a study to investigate the relationships among instruction strategies and learning styles. Their study conducted with graduate students registered in a graduate level online course. It used an online version of the Psychological Differentiation Inventory to measure the filed-dependent students. Results represented that matches between students’ learning styles and instructional strategies did not influence learners’ learning outcome. When low and high field-dependent learners receive instruction utilizing instructional strategies matching their characteristics, they showed the same learning benefits from the instruction. It suggested that course instructors can be a guide to make instruction more appealing and effective for students with different learning styles.
Bailey, Onwuegbuzie and Daley’s (2000) study aimed at examining the role of learning style in foreign language achievement. They used a popular learning style instrument (PEPS) to examine whether learning style might be correlated with foreign language achievement at college level. There were 100 university students participating in this study. The multiple regression analyses showed that higher achievers in foreign language course preferred informal classroom designs and preferred not to gain information through kinesthetic mode.
Moreover, learning styles and personality variables were weakly related to foreign language proficiency.
In order to explore the relationship between learning style and learning achievement, Cheng’s (2006) study was designed to investigate senior high school students’ perceptual learning style preferences and their language learning strategy use and the correlations between perceptual learning style preferences and the language learning strategy uses. There were 339 second-year senior high school students in central Taiwan who participated in this study. The findings showed that the students preferred group learning most, followed by kinesthetic learning and auditory learning style. The less frequently used learning styles were individual learning, visual learning, and tactile learning styles. Regarding strategy use, it revealed that students used comprehension strategies most, but used affective strategies less frequently. The finding also indicated that there were significant correlations between students’ perceived learning styles and strategy use. Kinesthetic learning preference was related to metacognitive strategies. Tactile learning preference was related to cognitive strategies and affective strategies. Group learning preference was related to social strategies.
Namely, strategy use and learning styles were interrelated.
Based on different proficiency of learners, Chiu (2002) conducted a study to explore differences in English learning styles among high and low proficiency EFL learners. The learners were divided into three groups: elementary, junior high and senior high school students. Each group of students was further divided into two levels: high and low proficiency.
The findings revealed that high achievers were more outgoing and open-minded than low proficiency students and high proficiency students presented more active and positive attitudes toward learning. In contrast, low proficiency students showed negative and passive attitudes toward learning. Chiu’s study suggests that learning styles would affect learning for both high and low proficiency students. Each student would apply particular learning styles to learn a language.
In order to analyze students’ behaviors and performance in courses mismatched to their learning styles, Kinshuk, Liu and Graf (2009) selected the Felder-Silverman learning style
model to examine the relationship. There were 72 students participated in the study. Results showed that learners need more assist in mastering mismatching courses and students with different learning styles and different performance levels chose different strategies for behaving in a mismatched course. In addition, if the learning material is mismatched to learners’ learning styles, learners with a sequential preference can benefit from looking as other learning objects, which was suitable for their learning styles, rather than relying on predefined structure and learning objects in mismatched course.
In order to investigate Iranian EFL learners’ language learning style preferences, Riazi and Riasati’s (2003) study used a 13 –items language learning preference questionnaire adopted from Brindley (1984) to investigate. There were 219 different levels and different age of learners participated in the study. Results showed students’ learning preferences in different areas. Only 35% students preferred working alone, but 64.8% of the students preferred working in pair or in groups. Almost 90% students liked to learn language via media, such as television, video, films, blackboard or pictures. Media were most popular with language learners. However, language games did not attract students’ attention highly. Most students enjoyed talking with and having interaction with their classmates. Results also indicated that teachers were aware of some of their students’ learning preferences, but unaware of some others. It suggested that teacher should cooperate with students closely.
Miller’s (2005) study compared two instruments while evaluating the influence of learning style on performance when applying a computer-based instruction (CBI) system to instruct introductory probability and statistics. There were 54 university students participated in this study. It used Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) to measure participants’ learning style. The finding showed that there was an effect of learning style on course performance in a non-liner CBI course teaching introductory
significantly more than the students with Concrete Sequential style, but there was no effect based on the instrument of LSI styles.
In addition, in order to explore whether the matching of instruction material with cognitive style can enhance students’ learning achievement, Thomas and Mckay (2010) conducted a study to examine the hypothesis that students learn better when the instruction material matched students’ cognitive style. There were 41 university students who studied information on the three personality theories presented in text only, and completed an adapted cognitive style questionnaire. When the presentation format matched students’ cognitive style, recall could be predicted through students’ verbal and visual scores. It demonstrates that when the instructional material is matched to students’ cognitive style, the learning outcomes can be enhanced. Students exhibited a better performance in comprehension when the teaching material was matched to their preferred learning styles. Namely, matching of students’
preferred cognitive styles with the instructional design can enhance students’ learning achievement.
To sum up, previous studies indicate that learning styles and strategy use are interrelated. Also, matching of instructional design with students’ learning style may promote students’ learning outcome. The instructors should identify the students’ learning styles to help them learn English efficiently.
2.4 The classification of reading strategies
There have been numerous researchers who proposed the definition of reading strategies. According to Block (1986), reading strategies are techniques and methods that readers apply to assist them to read more effectively and successfully. Readers use these techniques to accomplish a task, and to get more understanding when they don’t understand.
The literature related to strategy use has been provided by various researchers (e.g.
Oxford, 1990; Chamot & O’Malley, 1996). According to Chamot and O’Malley (1996),
reading strategies involved in the present study were classified into three categories:
metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies. Metacognitive strategies have the function of the execution. Metacognitive strategies include making advanced plans, thinking carefully about the learning process and monitoring of one’s learning outcome or comprehension. Learners use this reading strategy to control their cognition, coordinate their learning process and evaluate their learning goal and learning outcome. Cognitive strategies refer to more directly process the learning material itself and are used to complete language task. Socio-affective strategies assist learners to adjust their emotion and attitude, and involve interaction with other people. Learners enjoy in working with each other, are fond of getting feedback from peers and are willing to ask teachers some questions for clarification.
2.5 Reading strategies investigated in the present study
Numerous instruments have been developed to investigate reading strategy use by various scholars. The reading strategies examined in the present study were selected based on the framework of Brown (2001), Chamot and O’Malley (1996), Oxford (1990), Smidt and Hegelheimer (2004), Tsai and Ernst (2009) and Yang (2006). The description of selected reading comprehension strategies is represented in Table 2.
Table .2 The description of selected reading strategies
Strategy Description
Metacognitive strategy Planning
Advanced organization Identifying the organizing principle information in the text Organizational planning Planning how to complete the learning task
Selective attention Looking for some particular information and pieces of information in a text; Scanning the details in the text rather than reading the whole text
Self-management Arranging the learning schedule such as when to read, where to read, and how to read
Evaluating Evaluating the function of strategies ; Analyzing learning outcome
Monitoring
Monitoring comprehension Checking one’s comprehension while reading
Evaluating: self-assessment Checking back one’s own progress to complete the reading task on time.
Cognitive strategies
Inferencing Using context clues to better understand the meaning;
Analyzing words such as looking for the prefixes, suffixes, roots; Figure out word meaning based on its sound or form;
Using information in the text to guess meanings of new items or predict upcoming information; Guessing the meaning of unknown words or phrases
Elaboration Using one’s prior knowledge or background knowledge; Imaging mental pictures to learn information
Repetition Repeating any portion of the text, including the word, the phrase or the sentence I don’t
understand
Table .2 The description of selected reading strategies (continued) Cognitive strategies
Resourcing Utilizing reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks
Note taking Taking notes while reading to facilitate comprehension Summarizing Writing down the main idea in a text
Translation Translating the sentences from L2 into L1 Transfer Transferring Chinese linguistic knowledge into
English Social/affective strategies
Questioning for clarification Ask teachers or experts questions to understand Materials
Cooperation Working with each other for completing a task Lowering
anxiety/self-encouragement
Reduce anxiety by improving the sense of competence; Think positively that one can solve the reading problem
2.6 Relationship between strategy use and reading performance
There have been many studies investigating the use of reading strategies among EFL students in Taiwan (Cheng, 2008; Chen, 2009; Hus, 2007; Hong –Nam & Leavell, 2006;
Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2006; Lau & Chan, 2003; Tseng, 2008; Tsai, 2010). Cheng’s (2008) study aimed at examining the overall and specific types of reading strategy use among EFL college students. It also examined the effects of English proficiency and gender on strategy. There were 217 college English majors who participated in this survey. The reading strategy questionnaire included five types, such as memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social-affective strategies. The finding in the study showed that the most frequently used strategy was metacognitive strategy. Also, there was no significant difference among high, mid and low achievers in their overall choice of strategies and specific types of strategy use,
proficient students applied more reading-aloud, skimming, guessing from the context, and analyzing sentence patterns and grammar structures strategies than low proficiency students.
Namely, high proficiency students apply more reading strategies to help them in reading, but low proficiency students apply fewer strategies.
Chen’s (2009) study involved 190 junior high school students in grades 7, 8 and 9. He intended to examine the relationship among grade levels, perceptual learning style preferences, and language learning strategies. The instruments were perceptual learning style preference questionnaire and the strategy inventory for language learning. Results showed that significant relationships were found to exist between grade level and tactile style, kinesthetic learning style and individual style. It was also reported that significant relationships existed between grade level and the memory strategies, cognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. This demonstrates that grade level, strategy use and learning styles are interrelated. Thus, it was crucial for teachers to understand individual differences of their students and ensure that their course information design suitable for students in different grade levels.
Based on the college students’ midterm exam scores, Hsu (2009) employed a revised questionnaire developed by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) to examine forty one technological college students’ English strategy use in reading courses. The results showed that for all of the college participants, the most frequently used strategies were metacognitive strategies and the least frequently used were cognitive strategies. Females used more cognitive and social-affective strategies than males, but there was no significant difference between male and female students in terms of the frequency of overall reading strategy use. Significant gender differences were found in the type of strategy use, rather than in the frequency of overall strategy use. Besides, effective readers tended to apply strategies more frequently than their less-effective counterparts in terms of overall strategy use. Differing proficiency readers tended to use different strategies while reading.
In order to understand the learning strategy use of EFL students with different culture and linguistic background in a college Intensive English Program, Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) selected a self-report questionnaire, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, to assess the frequency of use of language learning strategies. There were 55 ESL university participated in the study. Results showed that students used metacognitve and social strategies more frequently than any other strategy during their learning. ESL students preferred to use metacognitive strategy to control, plan and organize their learning process. The intensive learning environment of the IEP program may be the factor influencing their selection of metacognitive and social strategies. The sooner they pass the program, the sooner they can start to take regular university coursework. Metacognitive knowledge can enhance their academic performance go hand in hand. The IEP may also pay an important role in high use of social strategies for participants because the learning environment in IEP had a very student-oriented philosophy curriculum and was full of native speakers. The instruction of the IEP encouraged and supported more interactive learning for the purpose of developing linguistic fluency. This was the cause why students in the IEP selected social strategy morn than other strategies.
The aim of Ikeda and Takeuchi’s (2006) study was to reveal the differences in the process of learning reading strategies by EFL learners with different proficiency levels. There were 10 Japanese female college students learning English were analyzed. Results showed that prominent differences between two groups. High proficiency group used more than one strategy than low proficiency while learning English. High proficiency learners knew the purpose of the merit of each strategy use than low proficiency learners. High proficiency understood the condition where a certain strategy can be used effectively but low proficiency learners did not well understand. High proficiency achievers considered combined use of
Teachers also can show students some concrete examples of effective strategy use to low proficiency achievers in order to facilitate them to use strategies in reading.
In 2003, Lau and Chan were intended to analyze the reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers. They selected 83 good readers and 76 poor readers in Hong Kong to compare their ability to use reading strategies in Chinese reading comprehension. Results showed that poor reader scored lower than good readers in using all reading strategies and especially in applying cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Based on the performance on the test, it could be inferred that poor readers were only able to apple simple strategies, such as deleting unimportant sentences and understanding the surface information in narrative text. Poor readers were poor performance on those sections assessing sophisticated cognitive strategies and metacognitive, such as construction, summarization, and inference and identifying main idea in the text. it also indicated that students’ ability in suing reading strategies was an important factor in reading comprehension. It suggested that we could enhance poor readers’ reading comprehension via direct reading instruction.
In order to investigate the effect of metacognitive reading strategy training on junior high school student’ EFL reading comprehension. Tseng’s (2008) study was conducted to test 30 junior high school students of the seventh grade. The students were divided into two groups of high proficiency and low proficiency. It aimed at investigating the differences of metacognitive reading strategy use between high and low proficiency groups, the perceptions of reading, English reading comprehension and students’ response to the metacognitive reading strategy training. It took four weeks to train students’ metacognitive reading strategies.
The finding of the study suggests that the metacognitve reading strategy training can increase high and low proficiency readers’ metacognitive awareness of strategy use. Besides, the training of metacognitive reading strategy can enhance students’ metacognitive awareness of strategy use and reading comprehension, especially for low proficiency students. Finally, most of the students showed their positive attitude toward the effectiveness of the
metacognitive reading strategy use. They also represented their high willingness to use metcacognitive strategies and to learn new reading strategies to facilitate their English reading comprehension. Tseng’s study clearly demonstrates that reading strategy training can help
metacognitive reading strategy use. They also represented their high willingness to use metcacognitive strategies and to learn new reading strategies to facilitate their English reading comprehension. Tseng’s study clearly demonstrates that reading strategy training can help