A Relationship of Student’s Learning Style with Their achievement of English Lesson

Compiled by :

Rahmat Nurudin (0713042038)

English Department

Art dan Language Major

Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Lampung University

2011

BAB I

INTRODUCTION

A.    Background of Problem

Learning styles are various approaches or ways of learning. They involve educating methods, particular to an individual, that are presumed to allow that individual to learn best. Most people prefer an identifiable method of interacting with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Based on this concept, the idea of individualized "learning styles" originated in the 1970s, and acquired "enormous popularity".

Proponents say that teachers should assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods to best fit each student's learning style, which is called the 'meshing hypothesis.

The alleged basis and efficacy for these proposals has been extensively criticized. Although children and adults express personal preferences, there is no evidence that identifying a student's learning style produces better outcomes, and there is significant evidence that the widespread "meshing hypothesis" (that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student's learning style) is invalid. Well-designed studies "flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis". However, this research does not mean that individuals do not have learning preferences, or that they will not learn better if the teaching technique does not take account of these techniques, and teaching methods that provide preferential treatment to one group in the classroom is likely to produce significantly sub-optimal results.

B.     Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine how student learning styles influenced student’s achievement in English Lesson. The obectives of the study were to identify:

(a) the demographic characteristics of the students in relation to learning styles,

(b) differences among student’s achievements in relation to learning styles, and

(c) relationships among student achievement, toward their learning styles characteristic.

C.     Methods and Procedures

The population for this study included 20 students  randomly taken from some students of FKIP Unila come from many departements. All student had ever follow English lesson in first semester. They are considered being similar in ability of working writing text. Research choose those students randomly. They are classified into some classification of learning style type bassed on the David Kolb’s Model. Each student has their score refer to index of learning style

Grade.  Researcher hand them a package of qouestinare to ask them 80 statement about their tendency about what they think, how they solve problem, how they work  assignment etc whether  individually or in groups. Each statement is only answwered agree or disagree. Each statement has one point which it will be accumulated as the score of their learning style. That score could be described or conversed in to Learning style Analyzing Grade. Then, the collected data will be inputted in SPSS to analyze the corrrealtion among Student’s Learning Style towar their achievement of English Lesson.

 

BAB II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A.    Learning Style theories

David Kolb's model

The David A. Kolb styles model is based on the Experiential Learning Theory, as explained in his book Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1984). The ELT model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches toward transforming experience: Reflective Observationand Active Experimentation. According to Kolb’s model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands. In order for learning to be effective, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, however, they tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach. The resulting learning styles are combinations of the individual’s preferred approaches. These learning styles are as follows:

1.     Converger;

Convergers are characterized by abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. They are good at making practical applications of ideas and using deductive reasoning to solve problems.

2.     Diverger;

Divergers tend toward concrete experience and reflective observation. They are imaginative and are good at coming up with ideas and seeing things from different perspectives. Divergers have received their label because they prefer concrete situations that that call for the generation of ideas, such as a brainstorming session. This does not mean they are abstract thinkers: just the opposite, they are down-to-earth people who kearn best through concrete. Experience and like to look at concrete situation from many points of view in a reflective manner. Thay are also interested in other people and are fairly emotional in their dealing with them. They have broad cultural interests and often specialize in the arts. In classroom situation they prefer to work in groups.

3.     Assimilator;

Assimilators are characterized by abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. They are capable of creating theoretical models by means of inductive reasoning.

4.     Accommodator;

Accommodators use concrete experience and active experimentation. They are good at actively engaging with the world and actually doing things instead of merely reading about and studying them.

Kolb’s model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual's learning style. An individual may exhibit a preference for one of the four styles – Accommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilating – depending on their approach to learning via the experiential learning theory model.

Identifying students’ learning styles helps educators understand how people perceive and process information in different ways. According to Dornyei ( 2005: 131), this experience, which may people share with may others, is related to two broader issue. The first issue is that we should not forget that the four type are the “ the pure” and the extreme cases, whereas poeple typically display some sortof a combination of these. Therefore, in order thatlearning style can be used in scientifically rigorous manner, they need to be operationalized in a measureable way and not merely in descriptor of the style caategories. The taxonomy of learning styles developed by Curry (1990) used the concepts of learning styles, student achievement, and motivation to explain the process of learning. Learning styles consist of a combination of motivation, engagement, and cognitive processing habits, which then influence the use of metacognitve skills such as situation analysis, self-pacing, and self-evaluation to produce a learning outcome. Curry’s taxonomy (1990) suggested that motivation, learning styles, and student achievement are associated.  

BAB III

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

A.    Result Research  And Discussion

Donyei ( 2005:132) states that there are one of the best known instruments to assess learning style, that is (a) Kolb’s Learnning style Inventory (LSI). Why we should measure Lesarning style? Beacause we may want to consider Chapelle (1992) summary : “ I believe that the most important and relevant human construct are those which are neither interesting to “ authorities” nor measurable at present. That is it could be the case that although learning style are valid and important psychological entities, measurement theory has not developed the right methodology to capture them. In this reseaarch, it use standard test in order to measure the score of Student’s learning style and then calssify them in to four groups of Learning style according to Kolb’s Model. It is known that there are four group of learning style model such as Divegers, convergers, assimilators, and Accomodators. However, in this research, it is not classified clearly through four groups of Learning style. Research just consider the score of each student learning style. Those score are corrrelated with student’s English score. That result is analized in the SPSS.17 by using Correlation Bevariate analysis. The result of the analysis could be seen in table. 1.0 below. Population of students who are asked to involve in this test are 20 students. This research concern in reveal the correlation between student’s learning style and their English score. It’s revealed that based on the Pearson correlation, the significancy of those correlation is negatively  0,169.  It’s mean that there is no significancy between student’s learning style and their english score. It could be considered negative to neutral condition

B.     Discussion and conclusion

According the research had been held and been analyzed generally, it is revealed that there is no significancy between student’s learning style and their English score ( academic achievement). It is neutral even negative. The theoritical view that could be judgement of this result are from the previous research result held by Ching-Chun Shih, Research Associate Julia Gamon, Professor Emeritus, Iowa State University. That research conclude that Moreover, ” field-independent students did not differ from field-dependent students in motivation and attitude........”. The researchers concluded that students with different types of learning styles, motivation, attitudes, and backgrounds learned equally well in Web-based courses.  This study found that students held a neutral attitude about web-based instruction. Students were most positive about the convenience of web-based instruction and the ability to control their pace of learning, which mirrors Miller’s (1995b) results in his study of the Professional Agricultural Degree Program via videotaped instruction. Getting better grades than other students and expecting to do well were the two most highly rated motivators for web-based learning. Students enjoyed the convenience and self-controlled learning pace and were motivated by competition and high expectations in web-based learning.

Therefore, Based on Kolb’s ( 1984) report theoritical assumption that the “abstract and concrete” thinking categories were opposite ends of the continuum was born out by significantly negative correlation.

Table.1.0 Correlation data between Student’s learning style and English Score

Correlations
		Lerning style	English score
Lerning style	Pearson Correlation	1	-.169
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.477
	N	20	20
English score	Pearson Correlation	-.169	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.477
	N	20	20

Student’s Number	Learning style’s value	English Score
1.00	59.00	60.00
2.00	59.00	76.00
3.00	59.00	74.00
4.00	56.00	70.00
5.00	57.00	84.00
6.00	50.00	76.00
7.00	54.00	68.00
8.00	53.00	68.00
9.00	61.00	60.00
10.00	52.00	67.00
11.00	58.00	77.00
12.00	56.00	80.00
13.00	58.00	80.00
14.00	56.00	60.00
15.00	46.00	74.00
16.00	41.00	69.00
17.00	42.00	75.00
18.00	46.00	80.00
19.00	57.00	69.00
20.00	52.00	75.00