As shown in the quantitative results, high English proficiency college students preferred reflective learning style first, followed by visual style, sensing style, active style, verbal style and intuitive style. On the other hand, the low English proficiency college students also preferred reflective style first, followed by visual style, active style, sensing style, verbal style and intuitive style. The results of high and low college students’ cognitive style preferences showed that the most preferred and the least preferred learning styles for learning English are reflective and intuitive style, respectively. It might indicate that Taiwanese EFL college students prefer to learn through thinking about information, to understand something better before acting but they had less willingness to read materials that were abstract and theory oriented.
The result of the most preferred learning style in this study was different from the findings in Hsu’s (2007) and Lee’s (2004) studies. In Hsu’s (2007) and Lee’s (2004) study, they reported that Taiwanese elementary and junior high school students preferred group style the most but individual style the least. It was found that Taiwanese EFL elementary and junior high school students preferred group learning style the most but Taiwanese EFL college
students preferred reflective learning styles the most. The possible explanation for the difference learning style preference among college and elementary and junior high students was that the subjects in Hsu’s (2007) and Lee’s (2004) study were young students but the subjects in the present study were adults. The difference of age and cognitive abilities might lead to different style choices. In addition, another possible reason is that the differences of the learning environments may lead to different style choices. As for the learning environment at elementary schools and junior high schools, Taiwanese educational organization started to implement Nine-Year Compulsory Curriculum for teaching English in elementary and junior schools in 2001, which emphasized on developing students’ interaction and communication ability with classmates and teachers. According to the educational policy, teachers were guided to arrange many communication activities for students to encourage students to become active learners and to interact with their classmates, leading elementary and junior high students to apply group learning style frequently in actual learning environment. In contrast, English curriculum offered by General Education Department at I-Shou University aims at enhancing students’ fundamental academic skills and critical thinking abilities.
Various contests or discussions were included in the course, which not only can provide students opportunities to practice what they have learned from the course but also train their critical thinking ability to think of possible application and answers to solve the problems. It encourages students to do brainstorming and to control their own learning process without cooperating with classmates frequently, forcing students to enhance critical thinking ability and to develop reflective ability. Thus, due to the different features of learning environments, it may cause college students to develop reflective style in learning English but elementary and junior high students to select group style in learning English.
In addition, the most preferred learning style was reflective style which was different
reason for different results in these two studies may be attributable to different teaching approaches. Riazi’s study reported that learners seemed to favor a communicative approach to language learning but disfavor working alone. It showed that they felt more comfortable and relaxed by cooperating with each other such as in pairs, in groups or exchanging opinions, but students in this study selected reflective style most in reading English. It can be assumed that the teaching approaches in English course at I-Shou University emphasize more on training students’ independent thinking abilities and reflective abilities than communicative abilities.
Hence, college students develop reflective style in reading English most. It was suggested that teachers should be aware of their students’ learning styles preferences and then adjust their teaching approaches to match students’ learning style preferences in order to enhance teaching-learning process.
Similar to Riazi and Riasati’s (2003) study, the second learning style preference in this study was visual learning style. It reported 90% Iranian EFL students preferred learning English media tool such watching films, video or seeing pictures. The possible explanation was that media played an importance role in language teaching and learning. Taiwanese college students and Iranian EFL students both preferred getting information through pictures, diagrams or televisions. It can be assumed that media can stimulate students’ five senses to facilitate comprehension and enhance their memory when they can see some vivid pictures.
Hence, it was suggested that teachers can enrich various teaching aids in the classroom such as flashcards, pictures, charts, maps, powerpoints, or films, DVDs to stimulate students’ five senses and arouse students’ learning interesting.
The least preferred learning style in this study was intuitive style, which was different from the previous studies (Chen, 2009; Hsu, 2007; Ko, 2002). The researchers (Chen, 2009;
Hsu, 2007; Ko, 2002) who investigated cognitive style preference in Taiwan mainly had classified into three learning style preferences: visual/auditory, kinesthetic/tactile and group/individual preference. Because different categories of learning styles were investigated,
different outcomes were expected. In addition, one explanation for college students at I-Shou University disapproving intuitive style in this study may be the fact that they did not have many experiences to read original text books and lacked of professional English knowledge before entering I-Shou University. When they started to study in the courses that emphasized abstract concepts and theories, they might feel difficult to understand those materials such as Linguistics, Literatures and English Teaching Approaches. Because these teaching materials contained many difficult terminologies, complicated sentences, abstract philosophies and theories, it was difficult for freshman to comprehend. It may cause that freshman in I-Shou University disfavored the courses that focused on abstract theories and concepts because they would lose confidence and feel bored when they study the materials they could not understand easily.
In addition, the subjects with different English proficiency achieved no significant difference on cognitive style preferences. This finding was similar to previous studies (Daley, Onwuegbuzie, & Bailey, 2000), which reported that learning style variables were indirectly or weakly related to foreign language achievement. It represented that learning style variables were not strongly related to English proficiency. Based on the findings in the study, it can be explained that learning styles only play a modest role in foreign language achievement because learning styles are not related to students’ English proficiency.
5.2 Taiwanese college students’ reading strategy use
According to the questionnaire on reading strategy use, the results showed that Taiwanese EFL college students used metacognitive reading strategy most, followed by social/affective strategy and cognitive strategy. The finding was consistent with the previous studies (Cheng; 2008; Hsu, 2009; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007;
Tsai, 2010) that the ESL college students in the USA and the EFL college students in Taiwan
the technique, metacognitive reading strategies are used to help learners control their cognition, and coordinate their learning process (Brown, 2000). It could be interpreted that college students in this study tended to use metacognitive strategies to assist them to control their cognition and coordinate their learning process while reading English regardless of their cultural background. They preferred making a general but comprehensive preview of the concept of an article. They would like to make a plan and think carefully about their learning process. Compared to Magogwe and Oliver’s (2007) study, which reported that both the secondary and tertiary level students in Botswana preferred metacognitive strategies, but the primary school students preferred social strategies, the finding in this study was similar with Magogwe and Oliver’s (2007) study. It can be assumed that students with high level of education and mature personalities tend to apply metacognitive strategies to facilitate their learning. Metacognitive strategies were more suitable and matched adult learners but not suitable for young learners.
In addition, the finding of results was similar with Hong-Nam and Leavell’s (2006) study, which reported ESL students at Southerwestern University applied metacogntive strategies most frequently. The possible reason can be explained that adult students are tended to use metacognitive strategies to advance their professional English knowledge and enhance their learning performance in order to get high scores on test. Hong-Nam and Leavell’s (2006) study reported that ESL students in the intensive learning environment of IEP program appeared familiar the need to manage their learning process and controlled their learning schedule and evaluating their own learning outcome. Students were learning English to advance their academic and professional lives. The sooner they graduate the program, which get an adequate score on TOEFL, the sooner they can start to select regular courses. Students in the IEP plan their goal and monitor their own learning process. Metacognitive knowledge can help them to achieve their goal efficiently. Thus, it can be assumed that students at English reading course at I-Shou University tend to apply metacognitive strategies frequently
to advance their academic knowledge and enhance their learning validity in order to pass mid-term exam, final exam, and even graduated exam---TOEIC. They set goal for reading such as studying for an exam or reading for a researcher paper and know which strategy to use and how and when to use it to facilitate reading English. They keep track of their own progress to complete the reading task on time. The possible reason of efficiently planning and monitoring their learning processes is to get high scores on exam and pass the course smoothly and efficiently.
Moreover, Hsu’s (2009) study showed that the difference of gender and English proficiency did not represent significant difference on the choice of reading strategy type among college students. Female and male both preferred using metacognitive strategy to read English, the same with high and low English proficiency students. Hsu (2009) indicated that 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. In contrast, based on the finding of this study, significant differences between high and low proficiency learners were found in the frequency of overall strategy use. High proficiency readers tended to apply strategies more frequently than lower proficiency readers in terms of overall strategy, which was in accordance with Cheng’s (2008) study. Namely, it can be interpreted that the frequency of reading strategy use would be affected by different proficiency, but not by different gender.
High achievers knew how to apply reading strategy to facilitate reading more efficiently than low achievers, which was consistent with the previous study by Cheng (2008). High proficient students used more read-aloud, skimming, guessing form the context, and analyzing sentence patterns and grammar structures strategies than low proficiency students. High
have better performance in reading comprehension tests and enhance reading comprehension in learning English. In addition, the finding in the study might indicate that low proficiency students lack of the knowledge of how to use reading strategies to facilitate English learning.
Tseng’ (2008) study suggested that metacognitive reading strategy training could increase high and low proficiency readers’ metacognitive awareness of strategy use. The metacognitive reading training strategy can enhance students’ metacognitve awareness of strategy use and reading comprehension, especially for low proficiency students. Thus, it suggests that teachers can instruct their students explicitly how to apply appropriate reading strategies to facilitate their reading comprehension, especially for low English proficiency students.
The less frequently used strategy in this study was social strategy which was different from Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006). Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) study reported EFL students in a language learning institute IEP preferred using social strategies highly frequently.
The possible explanation accounting for the different results was due to different learning contexts and curriculum designs. Leavell and Hong-Nam’s (2006) study showed that the IEP had a very students-oriented philosophy underpinning its curriculum. The environment was full of native-English speakers around students and instruction in the IEP which strongly encouraged and supported more interactive learning for the purpose of developing greater linguistic fluency. However, English reading curriculum at I-Shou University emphasized that students developed their critical thinking ability and reflective ability. Students were required to think first and solved the problems by themselves, instead of being offered opportunities to learn English with others by asking questions and cooperating with peers. Furthermore, the learning environment IEP setting because the learning contexts in Taiwan were not whole-English environment. This phenomenon may limit the opportunities for students in Taiwan to use English, thus it leads Taiwanese students to apply social strategies less. This may explain why ESL college students in USA selected social strategy more frequently than
EFL college students in Taiwan in learning English.
The last frequently used strategy was cognitive strategy which was consistent with Chen’s (2009) study. The plausible explanation was that Taiwanese junior high school students and college students both lacked of knowledge of using cognitive strategies to facilitate reading comprehension. Thus, it is hoped that the instructors can teach their students how to use appropriate strategy to learn English successfully. For example, instruction and explanation of reading strategy use by teachers may help students to enhance and encourage students’ strategy uses in order to make them have a better performance in learning English.
As for the strategies use among college students with different English proficiency, the finding in this study showed that there was significant difference in metacognitive strategies and overall strategies use among college students with different English proficiency, which was similar to Lau and Chan’s (2003) study. Compare to Lau and Chan’s (2003) study which reported that poor readers scored lower than good readers in using all reading strategies, and especially in applying sophisticated cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Poor readers were less capable than good readers in identifying main ideas, decoding unfamiliar words, summarizing main ideas and inferring implicit meaning in Chinese texts. The plausible reason can be explained that high proficiency students at English reading course at I-Shou University have better competence to use reading strategies to facilitate in reading English than low proficiency students. Thus, the abilities of learners’ using reading strategies played an important role influencing their reading comprehension achievement.
There was no significant difference in cognitive strategies use among Taiwanese college students with different English proficiency which was different from Ikedia and Takeuchi’s (2006) study showed that there were prominent differences in reading strategies use between EFL Japanese learners at high and low proficiency level during strategy
understand of combined use of strategies, and knew the condition where a certain strategy can be use better than low proficiency students. Thus, the plausible explanation can be assumed that both high and low proficiency learners at I-Shou University lacked of the knowledge of how to use cognitive strategies. It suggested that teachers can teach reading strategies explicitly, train students how to use strategies effectively, encourage learners to use strategies in different reading conditions.
5.3 The relationships among learning style, strategy use and reading comprehension The results in the present study indicated that the variables of learning styles had no significant correlation with reading comprehension performance, but the variable of metacognitive and cognitive strategies had significant correlation with students’ reading comprehension. Firstly, the results in Table 3 obviously indicate that the cognitive styles did not affect the students’ reading comprehension. It reveals that the Taiwanese EFL college students with different learning style will not affect their reading comprehension performance.
In addition, Table 4 indicates that Taiwanese EFL college students who use more metacognitive strategy and cognitive strategy exhibit better performances in their reading comprehension.
Cognitive learning styles had no significant correlation with the participants’ reading comprehension, which was similar to the studies (Akdemir & Koszalka, 2008; Bailey, Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 2000), but was different from other studies (Hsu, 2007; Lee, 2004;
Miller, 2005; Thomas & Mckay, 2010) that students’ learning style had positive correlation with their English performance. Bailey, Onwuegbuzie and Daley’s (2000) study reported that higher achievers in foreigner language classes tended to like informal classroom design and to prefer not to obtain information via the kinesthetic mode. It represented that there was a weak correlation between students’ learning style and foreign language achievement. The findings in this study supported Bailey, Onwuegbuzie and Daley’s (2000) findings that learning style
may not enhance or affect on students’ language performance. Akdemir and Koszalka’s (2008) reported that when the characteristics of low and high field-dependent students matched with the instructional strategies, match groups did not show any significant relationship with their learning outcome. Thus, it can be assumed that the learning style did not have significant relationship with learning achievement in this study not because of the mismatching of instructional strategies with students’ learning styles. It was suggested that future studies should take other variables to go further study such as matching of course design with students’ learning styles or matching of teachers’ teaching styles with students’ favor style. In contrast, there was no relationship between learning style and learning achievement which was different from Miller’s (2005) study that reported that there was a significant positive correlation between the concrete random score and the score on the final assessment, indicating that a student with strong concrete random characteristics scored higher on the final than a student with weaker concrete ransom characteristics. The possible reason could be assumed that the course design of English reading at I-Shou mismatched students’ learning style characteristics. It suggested that it teachers can provide opportunities for students to select their favor materials in order to arouse their learning interesting and enhance learning outcome.
However, the finding in this study was different from Thomas and Mckay’s (2010) results that learning styles had positive correlation with students’ learning achievement.
Thomas and Mckay’s (2010) study showed that college students who preferred verbal style exhibited better performance in comprehension. Thomas and Mckay (2010) reported that students with high verbal scores may have benefited because all learning presentations were verbal based, using text only condition. Students showed a better performance in comprehension when their cognitive style matched the instructional design. When cognitive
this study did not have a significant correlation with their reading comprehension. The possible cause could be assumed that the instructional design was not matched students’
cognitive styles at English reading curriculum at I-Shou University. Hence, it suggested that college teachers should assess their students’ cognitive styles first and then design students’
learning materials based on their students’ learning style preferences.
As for the correlations between reading comprehension and strategy use, Table 7 showed that there was a positive relationship between strategy use and reading
As for the correlations between reading comprehension and strategy use, Table 7 showed that there was a positive relationship between strategy use and reading