SELF-SELECTED READING ACTIVITIES BY LEARNING
STYLE PREFERENCES:PROMOTING READING TASK
ENGAGEMENT IN TERTIARY CLASSROOM
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for Master Degree
Florita Diana Sari
0808318
ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
===========================================================
Self-Selected Reading Activities by Learning Style
Preferences:
Promoting Reading Task Engagement in Tertiary Classroom
by
Florita Diana Sari
S.S Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2001
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master Degree at Graduate School of English Education
© Florita Diana Sari 2012 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the authority of InstitutTeknologi Telkom for their support throughout the years of my master education. Also to Ir.Christanto Tri Wibisono, M.M., Ir.BudiSoelistiyo, M.T,.and the Telkom Polytechnics staff for their assistance.
I owe a great debt of gratitude and appreciation to Prof. DidiSuherdi, Dr. WachyuSundayana, and Emi Emilia, Ph.D whose intellectual guidance, advice and help have been invaluable to me.
My sincere gratitude and appreciation extend to Dian Yuliana for her priceless companionship through the thesis making; to ImaKusmayanti for allowing some precious time for me to push through the finish line; to EndangBudiasih for the ‘food for thought’ along the way, and to Dianna Fuller for the encouragement and kindness that extend beyond continental borders.
DEDICATION
To Bapak&IbuDiono
and Diana Dewi
ABSTRACT
A number of studies suggest that allowing students to self-select reading material helps students become more willingreaders and increase the likelihood for deeper reading. However, it is not common for some English reading classes to allow students choosing reading materials, as they are usually prescribed by teacher or textbook (Zulfikar, 2009; Yembise, 2010). Recognizing choice as a well-known method for enhancing motivation, the current study employed students’ choice to self-select reading activities as a techique to promotereading task engagement.
This study aimed at investigating(i) students’ self-selection of reading activities with regard to their learning style, and (ii) their engagement in doing the selected reading activities. Three reading materials from a compulsory textbook were differentiated into 12 reading activities, each responding to different combinations of learning style previously identified using ILS (Index of Learning Style). A sample of 54 students from one polytecnics school in Bandung self-selected the reading activities that they thought most pertinent to them. This study looked for their affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagements. Compatibility and incompatibility of students self-selection relative to their identified learning style was also examined to see any difference in reading task engagement.
The ILS survey showed a majority of active (80.2%), sensor (83.1%), visual (81.7%), and sequential learners (81.7%). From self-reports, this evaluative case-study revealed six themes related to affective-behavioral-cognitive engagement, i.e. interest, imagination, challenge, relatedness, perceived compatibility, and external regulation. All responses combined, cognitive engagement (40.3%), affective engagement (39.7%), and behavioral engagement (14.0%) were recognized, with 6% of disaffection, orthe opposite of engagement. Participants with weak compatible self-selection (18.5%) were more likely engaged in the cognitive areas with less or no affective engagement. On the other hand, participants who made strong compatible self-selection (31.5%) were engaged more on the affective and behavioral aspects but at greater risk of disaffection due to unmet expectation on the reading activities they had chosen. The remaining 50% of participants, who made moderately compatible self-selection, were found to be engaged more on the cognitive area especially when they made intentional self-selection to activities that mismatched, either partially or fully, with their learning style. Readiness or internal regulation to self-select reading activities that were different from their usual expectation was one of the key factors in engaging students regardless of their learning style.
TABLE OF CONTENT
APPROVAL SHEET ... Error! Bookmark not defined. DECLARATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1. Background of the Study... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2. Research Purpose ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3. Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4. Significance of Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5. Organization of the Thesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1. Differentiated Instruction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2. Grouping and Self-selection... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3. Learning Style ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4. Learning Task Engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5. EFL-Reading Instruction in Indonesian Tertiary EducationError! Bookmark not defined. Summary of Literature Review ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.6. Procedure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.1. Procedure for Collecting Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.2. Procedure for Analyzing Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Summary of Methodology ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 4 : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1. Compatibility of Learning Style and Self-Selected Reading ActivitiesError! Bookmark not defined.
4.2. Learning Style Compatibility and Reading Activity Engagement ThemeError! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1. Interest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2. Imagination ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.3. Challenge ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.4. Relatedness ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.5. Perceived compatibility ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.6. External Regulation... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.7. Disaffection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3. Overall Engagement in DRAs ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Intersectional Area of the Present Study ...5
Figure 2.3 Overview of Felder-Soloman’s Index of Learning Style ...18
Figure 2.4 Overview of Myer-Brig's Type Indicator ...18
Figure 2.5.Coffield et al.'s Family of LS (2004) ...21
Figure 2.6. Kolb's and Honey-Mumford’s LS Model (from Yao, 2012) ...21
Figure 2.7 Framework of Engagement Process of Reading in Classroom Context ...27
Figure 2.8 Annotated Sample of Pre-Reading Activity for Upper Secondary Students Grade XI ...29
Figure 2.9 Annotated Sample of Reading Material for Upper Secondary Students Grade XI ………... ...30
Figure 2.10 Annotated Sample of Pre-Reading Activity for First Year Tertiary Student ...…31
Figure 2.11 Annotated Sample of Reading Material for First Year Tertiary Student ...32
Figure 3.1. Sample of ILS Result ………...40
Figure 3.2. Matrix of LS Combination for Differentiating Reading Activities ………... ...41
Figure 3.3. Theme-Identification Techniques ...53
Figure 4.1 Students’ ILS Result & Their Strength of Preference ………… ...55
Figure 4.2. Relatedness in Self Determination Continuum ...74
Figure 4.3. Continuum of Autonomy in Engagement ...77
Figure 4.4 Mood toward the Self-Selected Groups ...78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Comparison of Personalized, Differentiated, and Individualized
Instruction ……….………… 8
Table 2.2 Grouping Matrix ………...…………. 11
Table 3.1.Summary of Sample ………..37
Table 3.2. Reading Activities Differentiated by Felder-Soloman’s ILSError! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3.3 Pearson correlation matrix and the corrected inter-rater reliability . Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.1. LS-Compatibility Scoring ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.2 LS-Compatibility Frequency ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.3 Degree of LS Compatibility ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.4 Matrix for Theme Identification ...60
Table 4.5. Sample of Theme Identification TabulationError! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF TERMS
ACT -RFF : Active – Reflective DI : Differentiated Instruction
DRA : Differentiated Reading Instruction ESP : English for Specific Purposes GLO-SEQ : Global – Sequential
ILS : Index of Learning Style
LS : Learning Style
CHAPTER 1
: INTRODUCTION
Chapter I of this thesis introduces the background, purpose, and questions of the study. After presenting the significance of the study, the chapter closes with overall organization of the thesis.
1.1. Background of the Study
A number of studies suggest that allowing students to self-select reading material increases reading motivation and leads to greater skills in reading (Bruckmann, 2009). The choice of text not only helps students become more willing readers (Lehman, 2011) but also increase the likelihood for deeper reading and greater use of cognitive strategies (Guthrie, et al., 2004), as well as improve scores on standardized reading tests (Offenberg, 2009).
However, it is not common for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading classes in Indonesia’s colleges to allow students choose reading material. Particularly in teacher-centered (Zulfikar, 2009) or textbook-centered (Yembise, 2010) classrooms, instructors or course books dictate to students what to read during instructional time. This can reduce the likelihood of engaged reading, drops the quality of learning, and diminishes the development of English proficiency itself (Lawrence, 2011 citing Ur 1996, Lee1997, & McGrath 2002). Recognizing choice as “a widely acknowledged method for enhancing
motivation” (Marinak & Gambrell, 2010:71), the current study aims at making use
of students’ choice and self-selection to increase reading engagement in EFL
At least three challenges arise from this aim. First, since the content of EFL college reading is often institutionally prescribed, applying choice and self-selection to such a reading material demands an application of certain strategy. This strategy is expected to counter boredom and disinterest toward the prescribed reading materials. Second, the product of reading instruction itself, i.e. the way students can demonstrate whether they have learned the key concepts and skills, usually takes the form of standardized tests (Januleviciene & Kavaliauskiene, 2002). This also leaves fewer options for students to self-select ways to perform their learning result. Last, self-selection can be of little benefit if it is not related in someway to students themselves. Assor, Kaplan & Roth put the idea precisely, stating that “Choice is good, but relevance is excellent” (2002:1). Hence it is necessary to consider the relevant criteria used for offering self-selection that most
pertinently can promote student’s engagement to reading activities.
A growing body of literature on a teaching philosophy called Differentiated Instruction (henceforth is DI) lends insights for the current study. DI enables teachers to strategically plan the instructional content, process and
product to address learners’ needs, based on their profile, interest, and readiness
At this point, self-selection of activities for engaged reading can be made available by adjusting instructional process – rather than adjusting the content or product – to one of the three aspects of DI, i.e. learner’s profile, interest and readiness level. Since the prescribed texts for college reading are generally of one specific interest (i.e. the content area), students’ interests and readiness levels are not easily represented in the self-selection. Therefore, it is more feasible to
differentiate reading instruction toward the learners’ profile. Defined by
Tomlinson (1999), learning profile is the way student learns best, shaped by elements such as learning style, intelligence preference, culture, and gender. Since the literature and instruments on Learning Style (henceforth is LS) have been growing rapidly, this study employs student’s LS as the key aspect for differentiating EFL instruction to promote reading engagement.
1.2. Research Purpose
The present study delineates its purposes as follows:
a) identifying students’ learning styles and their compatibility to the reading activities that they self-select
b) investigating students’ engagement to the self-selected reading activities
1.3. Research Questions
The present study is conducted to answer two research questions as follows:
2. How do compatible/incompatible self-selections play role in students’ engagement while doing differentiated reading activities?
1.4. Significance of Study
The current study expects to contribute to three areas: the educational practice, the professional development of college instructors and the theory. To educational practice, this study advocates ownership in students reading activities to enhance engagement. Toward professional development, this study expects to empower EFL college instructors to use what they know about their students, and make informed decisions about some strategies to increase the quality of their profession. To the theory, the study enriches literature especially in differentiated instruction, learning style, and reading task engagement.
1.5. Organization of the Thesis
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This chapter begins its description on the methodology by addressing the research design and researcher‟s area of bias. Setting, participants, and instruments are
subsequently discussed. After describing procedure of data collection and analysis, this chapter concludes with a summary of methodology.
3.1. Research Design
This study employed an evaluative case-study design (Yin 2009:19). This design was selected due to its suitability to “describe an intervention and the real-life
context in which it occurred” (ibid:20). Evaluative case study is also useful to
explain the presumed causal links in the real-life interventions between variables
(e.g., treatment and intervention outcomes) which are “too complex for survey or
experimental strategies” (ibid:19).
Correspondingly, the treatment or intervention in this study was three
sessions of differentiated reading activities (DRA), each was devised by adapting
to different combinations of learning style based on the Index of Learning Style
model (ILS). The efficacy of DRA as a classroom practice to promote reading
task engagement was evaluated in its real-life context within three EFL reading
classrooms of an engineering college. Self-selection logs, observation sheet, and
comprehension test were the instruments used to investigate students’ reading task
engagement, and these instruments were trialed to enhance its validity. Students’
and cognitive responses (A-B-C responses) during DRA interventions. The
researcher also serves as an instrument to analyze the A-B-C responses, and
validity of findings were sought by applying several measures including
triangulating data, search for discrepant evidence, and quasi-statistics.
3.2. Researcher and the Areas of Bias
The researcher is a lecturer at Institut Teknologi Telkom, Bandung, where she has been teaching English for engineering students for ten years. The researcher is familiar with instructional demand of ESP in engineering area, and the challenges faced by her students to become skilled at reading engineering texts. Enthusiastic about facilitating students to be more engaged in reading, the researcher conducted an evaluative case-study design in one engineering college in Bandung. The researcher selected an institution other than her current affiliation as an attempt to maintain her objectivity in conducting the study.
they could be equally meaningful and fairly attractive to all learners. Second was from other raters, concerning the assessment of the comprehension test.
The second bias is that the researcher is not the leading instructor in the classes that could have possibly affected her interaction with the participants, and might have influenced the way students perceive her and her instruction in class. Students might respond more enthusiastically than their usual responses, or conversely give less importance to the activities given by the researcher since the activities were not bearing points to their final assessment. This bias had been minimized by appearing in few sessions prior to intervention, allowing students to interact more with the researcher. Researcher also reminded herself to stay alert to her own subjectivity and constantly examine herself for biases throughout the study by referring to multiple sources of data to counteract this limitation.
In retrospect, there were two major measures that could not be implemented in this research. First was inviting other researcher to the classroom and second was conducting post-research interview to confirm the finding from self-report and observation. To compensate the first deficiency, this study managed to videotape reading activities in order to maintain objectivity. Regarding the second, the researcher employed multiple self-reports to provide confirmation toward findings.
3.3. Setting
below bachelor degree, typically accomplished in three years. The vocational programs were related to information and communication technology: computer engineering (CE), computerized accounting (CA), and information system (IS).
Selection of site was made by reflecting on two factors. To begin with, one instrument namely ILS was originally designed to capture the LS of engineering students (Felder & Silverman, Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, 1998). Secondly, the polytechnics has given greater attention to English proficiency in its curriculum, indicated at least by the inclusion of English courses in four consecutive semesters, and the requirement of taking English proficiency test prior to graduation. Selecting an institution that has evident enthusiasm toward improving English skills has facilitated the study with the institution‟s confidence on the research, and the wider opportunity of
disseminating relevant benefits to the institution upon the completion of study.
3.4. Participants
Table 0.1. Summary of Sample differentiated reading activities compatible with their LS, two instruments were used: (i) Index of Learning Style Questionnaire and (ii) Differentiated Reading Activities. Meanwhile, to investigate the second research question, i.e. how compatible/incompatible self-selections of reading activities help students engage to reading task, there other instruments were used. They were (iii) Self-selection Logs, (iv) Observation Sheet and (v) Comprehension test. Each was intended to investigate students‟ affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses, respectively.
3.5.1. Index of Learning Style Questionnaire
To portray students‟ learning style (LS) and correspondingly answer the first
on the scores for 557 valid questionnaires of engineering students. In summary, the author supports conclusions found in the literature and points to the ILS as a suitable psychometric tool for evaluating LSs of engineering students.
There are at least three reasons for supporting the use of ILS in this study. First, as stated above, ILS was developed from a learning model of engineering students thus justifying its administration on the participants in this study. Second, scholars have tested the validity of this instrument including Van Zwanenberg et al. (2000), Livesay et al. (2002), Zywno (2003), Felder & Spurlin (2005) and Litzinger et al. (2005). One study by Livesay et al. reports the alpha to be in the range of 0.54 to 0.72 and they found relatively high test-retest reliability in repeated measurements over time (2002). Third, unlike many of other LS questionnaires, ILS is available on the internet for non-business use, and returns immediate result at no cost. Since its launch on the World Wide Web in 1996, ILS gets nearly a million hits per year and has been translated into several languages (Felder, 2001).
To help the participants do ILS survey on the Internet, the researcher provided hard copy of the Indonesian translation (Appendix B). This translated version of ILS was put on trial to 22 language lab assistants in the researcher‟s
institution, and the assistants found it useful in assisting them to understand the questions properly. It also increased their confidence in completing the survey.
(sensing/intuitive, or SEN-INT), modality input (visual/verbal, or VIS-VRB), and progress toward understanding (sequential/global, or SEQ-GLO). The ILS scales are bipolar, 44 forced-choice item that yields answer either (a) or (b). Since there are 11 numbers of items each on the four scales, scored as +1 and –1, the total score on a scale from –11 to +11 shows an emerging preference for the given dimension. Scores for each continuum are the complement of 11. Consequently, a person who gives 6 answers for reflective processing means she gives 5 answers for active processing. The difference is 1 favoring reflective processing, and thus reported in the ILS result as a cross above the REF scale as shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 0.1. Sample of ILS Result
3.5.2. LS-Differentiated Reading Activities
different combination of LS in 2x2 matrix, with the sensing-intuitive dimension as its main axis and three other dimensions modify it. The explanation below justify the use of sensing-intuition as the main axis, the making of twelve activities based on DI philosophy, and the validation of instrument. The corresponding model of LS-combination used in differentiating reading activities is depicted in Figure 3.2.
Sensing-intuition (SEN-INT) is used as the main axis because psychology experts and practitioners believe this dimension “represents the greatest
differences between people since it really influences one's worldview” (Tieger &
Barron-Tieger, 2000). It functions as “filtering system” (Quixote Consulting, 2010) and is said to be one of the keys to satisfaction at any kinds of occupation (Alvey, 2010). A study by Tieger & Barron-Tieger in the field of law vividly demonstrates the fundamental influence of this dimension, and the authors suggest that differences also may be recognized as early as on children (2000).
Figure 0.2. Matrix of LS Combination for Differentiating Reading Activities
were developed on the targeted Unit 7, 8, and 12. Differentiation was offered in the form of differentiated process (i.e. Unit 7, through different word games), differentiated product (i.e. Unit 8, through different drawings and stories), and differentiated content (i.e. Unit 12, through different sub-topics from one longer text). Graded ability was introduced – known in DI philosophy as „readiness‟. Unit 7 offered activities at word level, making use a set of the newly introduced vocabularies into active or reflective word games. Unit 8 presented activities at phrase level, applying bigger chunks of expression in visual or verbal products. In Unit 12, students were invited to interact with text at paragraph level, discussing sequential or global topics of a text. This way, the twelve reading activities has justifiably applied key principles of DI. Further, to minimize possibility that students choose only certain type of activity or certain corner of the class, these activities were offered in slightly different order. This counterbalances the effect of sensitization toward certain types of activity or certain position of groups.
To confirm the valid interpretation of styles into reading activities, researcher took two measures: conducting trials and consulting with educational psychologist. In three trials, the twelve activities were offered to classes in the research site that did not participate in the study. Students were asked to quickly self-select to one of four reading activities at a time. The activities and trial results were discussed with an educational psychologist in researcher‟s institution
(Appendix D). Several adjustments added after trial and consultation include: i. the use of identical color on each display of differentiated-activities
ii. the use of 60-second spirited music to encourage students physically self-select into the differentiated activities in just 1 minute. Self-selections may take up longer when students were undecided, and ended up accepting their friends‟ choice rather than following what interested them on the first place.
iii. the inclusion of more physical and manipulative activities for active learners (S+A and N+A). Due to the nature of reading itself as a reflective activity, and perhaps the researcher‟s mild propensity to reflective thinking, that the previous version of first differentiated reading activities (DRA-1) were more introspective than physical.
Table 0.2. Reading Activities Differentiated by Felder-Soloman’s ILS
Sensing (S) Intuitive (N) Legend: and explaining it as a hint to the group. Loud from using the context of the text to solve the puzzle. Loud from discussing possibilities and manipulating puzzle. The puzzle rewards with a praise at the back of the puzzle. with as many vocab cards as possible, and adding words in the gap. Finding its definition from the text; and using more cards to obtain greater scores
N+R : Classifying words and give umbrella title that reflects a new idea. Find the meaning of the words from the text, and innovate new contexts for the
S+V : Completing blanks in a flowchart. Identifying a process/procedure from the text, and work with phrases and their related pictures.
N+V : Drawing a picture making use of cards of phrases/idioms. Create an analogy where the all the cards can fit.
S+Q : annotating a few
See the big picture first then systematically can
To record how students self-select to the differentiated reading activities (henceforth is DRA), the researcher devise a self-report introduced to participants as „Grouping Log‟. The term was intentionally chosen as it was more readily
understood than term „LS-Differentiated Reading Activities Log‟. This instrument was designed to be simple but versatile, with its ability to capture multi-aspects of students responses including affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses.
The log took the form of semi open-ended self-report, and has four parts: personal data, the 1st DRA experience, the 2nd DRA experience, and the 3rd DRA experience (Appendix E). For personal data, students were asked to record their name, birth year, class, hobby they do on their own, and hobby they do with friends. These hobbies could give preview on how students were personally and collectively engaged. Throughout all DRA experiences, each log consistently
and „how-worth‟ of the chosen DRA. Related to the research questions, these four
information respectively elicited students‟ „self-selection‟, „behavioral response‟,
„affective response‟, and „cognitive response‟. They were translated into four
queries: (i) what group they chose that week (A, B, C, or D); (ii) the most influential reason for choosing (the activity, friends, seating position, miscellany); (iii) their feeling after choosing the group (content, discontent, wanted to move to other group, neutral); and (iv) whether they think the chosen activity help them with the reading material (yes, no, neutral). Students were also asked to elicit brief explanation on their chosen answer. This log was trialed along with the DRA with sufficiently good result, thus no adjustment was added except converting the log from English into Bahasa. This log was considered a useful and authentic source of engagement responses, and is presented in concise form for participants‟ benefit.
3.5.4. Observation Sheet
The observation sheet was developed by the researcher to capture students‟ behavior as they interact with text, peers, and instructor (i.e. the researcher). This was another versatile instrument as affective and cognitive responses can be well captured while observing the behavioral responses. This instrument tapped
students‟ engagement in three phases of differentiated reading activities (DRA):
the beginning, middle, and end. Each of the phases was back-up by videotaped recording to enable extra observation and further reference after the class.
middle phase, in which 2-minute observation was dedicated to each group. Last, another 4-minute classroom behavior concluded the observation. The observed behavior were coded into A (affective), B (behavioral), C (cognitive), and D (disaffection). The observation sheet was trialed concurrently with the DRA and self-selection log. The trial results were satisfactory, and only layout modification – from 2-page sheet into just one page – was made to the sheet (Appendix F).
3.5.5. Comprehension Test
Correspondingly, it was imperative to confirm the reliability of the open-ended questions (Appendix H), due to the fact that the study did not afford a trial on them prior to administration. Therefore, after administering comprehension test in three classes, 30 random samples were put under three-rater‟s scrutiny. The researcher purposively selected two host instructors as co-raters: one instructor with indications as a sensing teacher, and one with characteristics as an intuitive teacher. The inter-rater reliability on the open-ended comprehension test were as high as 0.86 between the researcher and the presumably-intuitive instructor, and 0.79 between the researcher and the presumably-sensing instructor (Table 3.3). The ILS taken by the raters confirmed the presumed LS of both co-raters, proven by scales of ACT-5, SEN-7, VIS-9, GLO-3 for the sensing instructor, and REF-5, INT-3, VRB-3, GLO-1 for the intuitive instructor. With the researcher herself scaled at REF-1, INT-3, VIS-1, GLO-5, it was evident the three raters shared global-holistic point of view, yet more contrast on the sensing-intuition scale.
Since only the researcher who would rate the comprehension tests of the remaining 53 participants, then an adjustment on the inter-rater reliability coefficient must be made. Fan & Chen (2000) point out how Spearman Brown prophecy formula can be modified to yield the correct coefifcient when inter-rater reliability is obtained from only part of a sample. The Spearman Brown prophecy is written as: and modified into into
corrected inter-rater reliability coefficient were calculated using statistical package in Excel, and the results are displayed in Table 3.3.
Table 0.3 Pearson correlation matrix and the corrected inter-rater reliability
Pearson raters take in information during assessment. Without considering this SEN-INT propensity of raters, this study could have overestimated or underestimated its inter-rater reliability. At Fleiss (1981) benchmark scale, the 0.65 agreement between researcher and her sensing counterpart fell under the category of „intermediate to good‟, while the 0.76 agreement between the researcher and her
intuitive counterpart was considered „excellent‟. However, under Landis & Koch
(1977) interpretation, both were deemed „substantial‟ (in Gwet, 2010).
The open-ended questions were introduced to students as „esai kreatif‟
(creative essay). The term here was meant in Indonesian sense in which esai normally refers to open-ended question, as opposed to multiple-choice, rather than in English sense of short written article. As the name suggested, students were invited to exercise creativity in answering the four questions. Students‟ LS can
also be reflected their responses, as question #11 demanded recall of items that
Fisher Z transformation average 1.028
Pearson correlation for 3 raters 0.77
Corrected coefficient (Fan & Chen, 2000)
Researcher & Sensing rater 0.65
favored sensing learning, #12 asked for comprehending and analyzing implied relationship that favored intuition, and #13-14 of synthesis and application favored both sensing and intuition. Similar to the principles of main and auxiliary dimension, all the four questions gives the opportunities for students to respond in varied degrees of active-reflective thinking, visual-verbal mode, and sequential-global progression. Some of the samples responses are accessible in Appendix I.
3.6. Procedure
With regard to data collection and data interpretation in qualitative study, Maxwell (1998) proposes seven measures to enhance their validity. Included in the list are intensive and long-term involvement, rich data, respondent validation, search for discrepant evidence and negative cases, triangulation, quasi-statistics, and comparison (ibid: 243-245). With regard to this study, the last five measures were applicable i.e. respondent validation, search for discrepant evidence and negative cases, triangulation, quasi-statistics, and comparison. Enhancing validity from intensive and long-time involvement was not feasible since this study was conducted only in four weeks, each lasted in 40-50 minutes. Although the instruments used in this study were capable of capturing varied data, but the limited length of study and the absence of in-depth interview had limited the
researcher from obtaining what Maxwell defines as „rich data‟(ibid: 244).
and DRA-3. Second, discrepant evidence and negative cases were analyzed by searching for unusual responses. Third, using multiple sources of data from five instruments, triangulation was conducted. Fourth, since most data were coded into categories, statistics was also feasible. Maxwell justifies the use of quasi-statistics as this allows researcher to support her claim and to assess the amount of evidence in data (Maxwell, 1998; 2010). Last, although explicit comparison is usually made through control group, this study made comparisons between groups of compatible and incompatible self-selection, as well as between sub-group of students who responded positively and negatively to DRA.
3.6.1. Procedure for Collecting Data
The earliest phase of data collection began with 2-3 weeks of sit-in phase. This was conducted in three participating classes to familiarize with the students, the class situation, and the instructors of the class. Institutional consent was formally sought at this phase. The sit-in phase was important mainly because the study would take a half of the instructional time for administering the DRA interventions, thus the cooperation from the host instructor were sought, informally. Observing how students interacted with the text, peers, and instructors also gave preview on dynamics in each respected class. In this sit-in weeks the instruments were gradually trialed to other classes and revised accordingly.
the translated version of ILS, the researcher showed students how to do the questionnaire on the internet and email the result to the researcher.
During the three weeks of DRA intervention, the host instructor taught grammar in the first half of instructional time and the second half was delegated to the researcher for reading instruction. The researcher stayed in the class during grammar instruction. When the reading instruction commenced, few host instructors stayed to observe the DRA; but in most cases, the class was fully entrusted to the researcher. The first 15 minutes of the reading instruction was typically stated with pre-reading activity to activate background knowledge on the topic. The next 25-30 minute was for students to self-select into groups and doing the reading activities. At this time the researcher observed the group behavior for engagement. Class was concluded with 5-minute wrap-up where students submitted their work and filled in the self-selection log.
Table 0.4. The Summary of Data Collection Stages and Instruments
# Instrument Description Reliability Types of Data 1
ILS questionnaire 44 forced-choice items 0.54 to 0.72
(Livesay et al.) Coded scale
2
Self-selection Log Self-report of 1 close-ended prompt &
3 semi open-ended prompts Trial, no revision
Coded Frequency Brief account
Observation sheet Observations on beginning-middle-end of activity for engagement response
After DRA intervention weeks passed, the comprehension test was administered, again at the end of an English session. Students who had not sent the ILS were offered to do the survey using the Indonesian version from which the researcher later input the answer on the Internet and recorded the result. Participant consents (Appendix J) were also sought formally at this phase.
3.6.2. Procedure for Analyzing Data
Qualitative data analysis that involves four steps according to Ryan & Bernard (2003). Thay are (i) discovering themes and subthemes, (ii) sorting themes to a manageable few, by deciding which themes are important in this study, (iii) building hierarchies of themes, and (iv) linking themes into theoretical models. The first step was the most important since, as Ryan & Bernard put it, “without thematic categories, investigators have nothing to describe, nothing to compare, and nothing to explain.” (2003; 86). The authors point out that themes are
discoverable in expression found in texts, images, or sounds. Classification is discovered when concepts are compared one against another and appear to pertain to a similar phenomenon. Therefore, the concepts are grouped together under a higher order, more abstract concept called a category (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; 61, in Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
Following qualitative analysis method from Ryan & Bernard (2003), the present study employed indigenous themes typologies with theory-related analysis. Indigenous themes are themes that characterize the experience of informants. This involves examining the setting and context, the perspectives of
activities, events, and relationships (ibid.; 93 citing Bogdan & Biklen (1982:156–
62).
Ryan & Bernard (2003) indicate that there is an inevitable trade-off
between bringing a lot of prior theorizing to the theme-identification effort and
going at it fresh. The authors see prior theorizing as potentially inhibiting the
forming of fresh ideas and the making of surprising connections. Persistent
avoidance of theory, on the other hand, brings the risk of not making the
connection between data and important research questions (ibid; 94). Therefore,
the current study sought the balance between the indigenous theme identification
(i.e. students responses) and the theory (i.e. learning task engagement theories).
Regarding the techniques for analyzing themes, this study employed a
technique suggested by Ryan & Bernard for identification of brief description of
1-2 sentences. These include repetition, similarities and differences, keywords in
context and indigenous typologies (Figure 3.3). Cutting and sorting are mostly not
Figure 0.3. Theme-Identification Techniques (Ryan & Bernard, 2003;102)
Summary of Methodology
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
This chapter summarizes the findings from the study, and offers several conclusions. It also describes limitations found in the study and recommends some areas awaiting further investigation.
5.1. Conclusions
The ILS survey showed a majority of active (80.2%), sensor (83.1%), visual (81.7%), and sequential (81.7%) learning style of 71 participants who took
ILS. Using Felder & Soloman’s (2001) indicator of preference intensity, the
number of moderate and strong learning style (LS) was highest for visual (56.3%), followed with active (40.8%), sensing (35.2%), and sequential (32.4%). These results correspond to the assumption initially made by Felder & Silverman (1998), that many or most engineering students are visual, sensing, active, and sequential. Similar results have been confirmed from LS studies in Denmark (Kolmos & Holgaard, 2004), Greek (Platsidou & Metallidou, 2009), China (Wang, 2007), Uni Arab Emirates and United States (Zualkernan, Allert, & Qadah, 2005), showing that engineering students are distinctly characterized by visual, sensing, and active LS, with less contrast in SEQ-GLO preference.
self-selection from the available twelve groups. On the other end, some 31.5% of participants exhibited strong compatibility. Four students consistently self-selected reading activities groups which turned out to be compatible with their LS. In the middle, some 50% of the participants chose reading activities which showed moderate compatibility with their LS.
This evaluative case-study with simple statistics also revealed that the self-selection allowed students to engage in doing reading activities, regardless of the degree of their compatibility. Students with weak compatible self-selection (18.5%) were intensely engaged in the cognitive areas with less or no affective engagement. Meanwhile, students who made strong compatible self-selection (31.5%) were more engaged on the affective and behavioral aspects but with greater risk of disaffection due to unmet expectations from the reading activities they had chosen. Most students, including the 50% of students who made moderately compatible self-selection, were more engaged on the cognitive area especially when they made intentional self-selection of activities that mismatched, either partially or fully, with their LS. Readiness to self-select reading activities that were different from their usual expectation was a key factor in engaging students regardless of their LS.
out that cognitive engagement was the mostly reported, i.e. 40.3% from all responses after doing differentiated reading activities. Affective engagement, comprising 39.7 % of responses, was only slightly less than cognitive engagement reported. Behavioral engagement was the third at 14.0%. Disaffection, as the opposite of engagement, was acknowledged in about 6% of total responses. Some of the above themes were also revealed in other studies. To name a few were Bruckmann’s study of self-selected reading among primary schoolers (2009) and similar study by Johnson & Blair’s (2003). Those themes
were also pertinent to Deci & Ryan’s seminal work on intrinsic motivation (1985),
Solarz’s study on affective-behavioral-cognitive changes on meditation (2004),
and Unver’s study on self efficacy in EFL classroom (2004).
In brief, it can be concluded that when choices are provided, students can feel challenged and generate their own readiness level to self-select their area of curiosity. However, satisfying curiosity is not always affordable in a one-size-fits-all class. Differentiated reading activities facilitates students’ curiosity, and thus nurtures their enthusiasm for learning. Differentiated instruction can promote student engagement, by offering self-selection. With regard to LS, self-selection allows students to improve their non-preferred styles, also called LS-stretching, when they are ready.
the attention of some students, particularly those who are less self-regulated or not very much intrinsically motivated. Explicit teaching is necessary to support such students, most likely also sustained with more personalized instruction. Secondly, it is very important for teachers to allow students have some degree of freedom to self-select, either the type of activity, the materials, the pace, or the group member. The last, the findings from this study also suggest that matching learning style with teaching style, or matching learning style with the ‘style’ or
nature of an activity is not necessarily imperative. Rather, readiness is a more essential enabler to allow students experience engagement in selecting and doing reading activities.
5.2. Limitation of the Study
This study has at least two limitations due to its design. First, this study was conducted in a limited time span, with only three opportunities to self-select. Therefore, some aspect of LS self-selection and compatibility have not yet been confirmed, especially regarding the auxiliary dimensions of active-reflective, visual-verbal, and global-sequential. Secondly, since the number of subjects recruited for this study was limited, with return rate of 56.4%, there was a possibility that students with incomplete responses could have elicit supportive or contradictive results from those obtained in this study.
5.3. Ideas for Future Research
benchmarking in this study, may influence the degree of inter-rater agreement. It is worth exploring and explaining whether inter-raters with different LS would process information differently and therefore result in different ratings on the students. Secondly, research can also be conducted with regard to types of reading materials, activities, or test items that potentially favor learners with a certain LS. Such a study could explore how reading material, activities, or assessments can be designed to stretch students’ LS and empower them for more
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AACPS. (2000 ). Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learning in the Regular Classroom . Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Anne Arundel County Public School:
www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/instr/CURR/tag/gt/gt2.html
Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. (2000, June). Why Should We Group Students Within-Class for Learning? Educational Research & Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.
Agnesia, R. H. (2010). Features Affecting Task-Motivation In English For Academic Purposes Online Learning. Second Language Studies, 29(1), 1-34.
Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: a case study. User Modeling and
User-Adapted Interaction, 16, 377–401.
Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. (2012, Mar). Every Child, Every Day. Reading: The Core Skill ,
69(6), pp. 10-15.
Alvey, J. (2010, Dec 7). Key Lawyer Personality Trait: Are You a Sensing or Intuitive Type? Retrieved Dec 28, 2012, from http://leavinglaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/key-lawyer-personality-traits-are-you-a-myers-briggs-sensing-or-feeling-type/
Arkkelin, D., & Freeman, P. (2000). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Responses to Three Classroom Designs. Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association . Chicago : http://faculty.valpo.edu/darkkeli/papers/classmpa00/classmpa00.htm.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choise is Good, but Relevance is Excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and Suppressing Teacher Behaviors Predicting Students' Engagement in Schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.
Bamford, J., & Day, R. (2004). Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language. Cambridge University Press.
Banner, G., & Rayner, S. (2000 , Summer ). Learning Language and Learning Style: Principles, Process and Practice . Language Learning Journal, 21 , 37-44.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
Beadles II, N. A., & Lowery, C. M. (2007). Self-Selection Into Degree Programs: Differences In Preferred Learning Styles Between Online Students And Traditional Students. Academy
of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2), 103-113.
Bedford, L., Wiebe , M., & Tschida , M. (2007). Flexible Grouping in the Higher Education
Learning Environment. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from
Benjamin, A. (2003). Differentiated Instruction for Elementary School: A Guide for Elementary
School Teachers . Eye on Education.
Bird, R. (2006, November ). Personalisation: what does it really mean? Retrieved Oct 23, 2012, from Teaching Expertise: www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/personalisation-what-does-it-really-mean-1442
Blaz, D. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Guide for Foreign Language Teachers. Eye On Education.
BNSP. (2010). Standar Isi Pendidikan Tinggi. Jakarta: Badan Standarisasi Nasional Pendidikan .
Bomia, L. L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. (2008). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boucquey, T., Flores, K., Kramer, J., McPherson, L., & Pettit, M. (2007). 100 Games & Activities
for the Introductory Foreign Language Classroom. Eye on Education.
Brassell, D. (2012). Differentiating Instruction to Benefit Students’ Comprehension. Retrieved Jun 23, 2012, from Literacy Connections: Promoting Literacy and a Love of Reading: http://www.literacyconnections.com/differentiating-instruction-reading-comprehension
Bray, B., & McKlaskey, K. (2012, Jan 12). Personalization vs Differentiation vs Individualization
(Chart). Retrieved Sep 2012, 2012, from Rethinking Learning:
http://barbarabray.net/2012/01/22/personalization-vs-differentiation-vs-individualization-chart/
Bresó, E., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2010 ). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study.
The International Journal of Higher Education Research.
Brewster, C., & Fage, J. (2001). Increasing Student Engagement and Motivation: From
Time-on-Task to Homework. Retrieved Apr 12, 2012, from Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratory: http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html
Bruckmann, C. M. (2009). What are The Effects of Allowing Self-Selection on Reading Motivation
and Skills? Retrieved Dec 20, 2012, from California State University, Sacramento:
http://edweb.csus.edu/edd/dissertations/cohort3/assets/bruckmann-colleen-effects-allowing-self-selection.pdf
Bulloch, K. (2004). How to Adapt Your Teaching Strategies to Student Needs. Retrieved Jun 22, 2009, from Readingrockets: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/370
Burrows, P. L. (2010). An Examination of The Relationship Among Affective, Cognitive,
Behavioral, and Academic Factors of Student Engagement of 9th Grade Students .
Buseco. (2009, Mar). Group Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Monash University Business & Economics: www.buseco.monash.edu.au/esg/agu/policies/group-assess-guidelines.pdf
Businessballs.com. (n.d.). David Kolb's learning styles model and experiential learning theory
(ELT). Retrieved Apr 2, 2010, from http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm
Byrnes, H. (1998). Reading in the beginning and intermediate college foreign language class. In G. S. Burkart, Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign
languages. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Cano-García, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and Thinking Styles: an analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4).
Carrizosa, K., & Sheppard, S. (2000). The Importance Of Learning Styles In Group Design Work.
30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Kansas City: IEEE Proceeding.
Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and urban society, 37(2), 139-150.
Caulfield, J. (2010, Jan). Applying Graduate Student Perceptions of Task Engagement to Enhance Learning Conditions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 4(1).
Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
35(1).
Chambers, G. (2007). Commentary: The Genesis of Student Engagement. LEARNing Landscapes,
1(1).
Chapman, A. (2009 ). Personality Theories, Types and Tests . Retrieved Oct 3, 2010, from www.businessball.com.
Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative Approaches to Assessing Student Engagement Rates. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13).
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The
influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of
Management Education, 30(4), 557-569.
Chen, Y.-u. H. (2007). Exploring the Assessment Aspect of Differentiated Instruction: College
EFL Learners' Perspectives on Tiered Performance Tasks. University of New Orleans.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in
Post-16 Education: A Systematic and Critical Review. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from
LSDA: http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf
Conaway, M. (1999, Oct 11). Repeated Measures Design. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/pub/Main/ClinStat/repmeas.PDF
Conttia, L. M. (2007). The Influence of Learner Motivation on Developing Autonomous Learning
in an English-for-Specific-Purposes Course. (Master Thesis). University of Hong Kong .
Corley, M. A. (2005, March). Differentiated Instruction Adjusting to the Needs of All Learners.
Focus on Basics: Connecting Research & Practice, 7(C).
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cribbie, R. A., & Jamieson, J. (2004). Decreases in Posttest Variance and The Measurement of Change. Methods of Psychological Research Online , 9(1), 37-55.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer.
DelliCarpini, M. (2006). Scaffolding and Differentiating Instruction in Mixed Ability ESL Classes Using a Round Robin Activity. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(3).
Dorney, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Driscoll, L. (2004). Reading Extra: A Resource Book of Multi-Level Skills Activities . Cambridge.
Dunn, R. (1984, Winter). Learning Style: State of the Science. Matching Teaching & Learning
Styles, 23(1), 10-19.
Dunn, R., & Honigsfeld, A. (2008). What if young children were grouped for reading with learning-style responsive approaches? Reading Improvement.
Dunn, R., Giannitti, M. C., Murray, J. B., Rossi, I., Geisert, G., & Quinn, P. (1990, August). Grouping Students for Instruction: Effects of Learning Style on Achievement and Attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4).
Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Ernst, H. R., & Ernst, T. L. (2005, Feb). The Promise and Pitfalls of Differentiated Instruction for Undergraduate Political Science Courses: Student and Instructor Impressions of an Unconventional Teaching Strategy. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(1), 39-59.
Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Ability Grouping: Principal Findings and Implications For Evaluating And Designing More Effective Educational Environments .
Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 163-179.
Exley, B. (2004). Indonesian EFL Curricula: What content knowledge demands do they make of Australian teachers? In E. McWilliam, S. Danby, & J. Knight, Performing Educational
Exley, B. (2005). Learner Characteristics of ‘Asian’ EFL Students: Exceptions to the ‘Norm’. In J.
(. Young, Proceedings Pleasure Passion Provocation (pp. 1-16). Gold Coast: Joint National Conference AATE & ALEA.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2000). Published Studies of Interrater Reliability Often Overestimate Reliability: Computing the Correct Coefficient. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60(4), 532-542.
Felder, R. (1990). “Meet Your Students: 2. Susan and Glenda". Retrieved Jan 27, 2011, from
”Chemical Engineering Education", Vol. 24, No. 1, 1990, pp. 7–8: www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Columns/Susanglenda.html.
Felder, R. (1996, December). Matters of Style Richard. ASEE Prism, 4, pp. 18-23.
Felder, R. M. (2001). Richard Felder's Responses to Frequenly Asked Questions about the ILS. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ILS-faq.htm
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding Student Differences. Journal of Engineering
Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and Teaching Styles In Foreign and Second Language Education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), pp. 21–31.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. (1998). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education.
Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Felder, R., & Soloman, B. (2001). Index of Learning Style Questionaire. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from North Carolina University:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
Felder, R., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To
Improve the Academy, 11, 137.
Ford, M. P. (2005). Differentiation Through Flexible Grouping: Successfully Reaching All
Readers. Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education. Learning
Point Associate .
Fredericks, A. D. (2005 ). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Success as a Teacher. Alpha Books.
Gambrell, L., & Marinak, B. (2009). Reading Motivation: What the Research Says. Retrieved 10 10, 2010, from Reading Rockets: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/29624
Ganly, S. (2010, Feb 4). Working Effectively in a Group of Different Learning Styles and
Personality Types. Retrieved Jun 12, 2010, from
Gay, L. (1992). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. New Jersey: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Gibson, E. L. (2005). Addressing the Needs of Diverse Learners Through Differentiated
Instruction. Humboldt State University.
Girden, E. R. (1992). Anova: Repeated Measures. SAGE.
Glenton, C., Lewin, S., & Scheel, I. (2011). Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: A case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers , 6:53. Implementation Science, 6(53).
Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. (2000). Research Methods in Applied Settings: An Integrated
Approach to Design and Analysis, Second Edition. Routledge .
Graf, S., Viola, S., Kinshuk, & Leo, T. (2003). Representative Characteristics of Felder-Silverman
Learning Styles: An Empirical Model.
Grasha, A. F. (2003, July/August). The Dynamics of One-on-One Teaching. Social Studies, 94(4).
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated Instructional Strategies: One Size Doesn’t
Fit All - 2nd ed. California: Corwin Press.
Griffiths, R., & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded Figures in the Landscape: A Reappraisal of L2 Research on Field Dependence/Independence. Applied Linguistics, 13, 133-148.
Grigoriadou, M., Papanikolaou, K., & Gouli, E. (2006). Investigating How to Group Students based on their Learning Styles. Advanced Learning Technologies.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield , A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional Contexts for Engagement and Achievement in Reading. In S. Christenson, Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement (pp. 601-634). Springer Science.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M., et al. (2004). Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.
Gwet, K. L. (2010). Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability (3rd Edition). Advanced Analytics, LLC.
Halstead, A., & Martin, L. (2000). Learning styles: a tool for selecting students for group work.
International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 39(3), 245-252.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruct ion in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and
Teach All Learners, Grade 3-12. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruct ion in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach and
Hede, A. (2003). A Critical Review of Learning Styles in Higher Education . University of The Sunshine Coast, Faculty of Business. Queensland: University of The Sunshine Coast.
Herdiah, I. S. (2009). Guided Group Reading: Helping Students to Understand Content Area Reading. Conference on Applied Linguistics 2 (CONAPLIN 2) (pp. 203-207). Bandung: Balai Bahasa Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Huebner, T. A. (2010, Feb). Differentiated Learning. Meeting Students Where They Are, 67(5), pp. 79 - 81.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2009). Technical Methods Report: Using State Tests in Education
Experiments, A Discussion of the Issue. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance: ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2009013
Ireson, J. H. (1999, Sep). Raising Standards: is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of
Education, 25(3).
Irujo, S. (2006, March/April). Flexible Grouping: Nobody Ever Said Teaching Was Easy! Retrieved June 2, 2009, from ELL Outlook: http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELL-Outlook/2004/sept_oct/ELLOutlookITIArticle2.htm
Januleviciene, V., & Kavaliauskiene, G. (2002). On Measuring ESP Proficiency at University.
Journal of Language and Linguistics, 1(4).
Jenkins, M. (1957). Self-Selection in Reading. The Reading Teacher - Classroom Organization:
Differing Viewpoints, 11(2), 84-90.
Jensen, D., & Bowe, M. (1999). Hands-on Experiences to Enhance Learning of Design: Effectiveness in a Redesign Context When Correlated with MBTI and VARK Types.
Proceeding of the ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Session 1625.
Joann, K. (1988). Is Group Self-Selection an Important Organizational Variable? . Annual Meeting
of the Southern States Speech Association. Memphis, TN: ERIC ED 293 179.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2000, June). Teaching Students To Be Peacemakers: Results of
Twelve Years of Research. Retrieved July 27, 2009, from
http://www.co-operation.org/pages/peace-meta.html.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the
College Classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D., & Blair, A. (2003). The Importance and Use of Student Self-Selected Literature to Reading Engagement in an Elementary Reading Curriculum. Reading Horizons, 3, 181-202.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011, Jul). Reading Engagement: A Comparison Between E-Books And Traditional Print Books In An Elementary Classroom. International Journal of
Instruction, 4(2), 5-23.
Keefe, J. W., & Ferrell, B. (1990, Oct). Developing a Defensible Learning Style Paradigm.
Educational Leadership, pp. 57-63.
Kelly, P. (2008). Achieving Desirable Group-Work Outcomes through The Group Allocation Process. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 22-38.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Teaching English Across Cultures What do English language teachers need to know to know how to teach English. EA Journal, 23(2), 20-36.
Kise, J. A. (2007 ). Differentiation through Personality Types: A Framework for Instruction,
Assessment, and Classroom Management. . Corwin Press.
Kise, J., & Rusell, B. (n.d.). Are They Really Problem Students? Bridging Differences through
Understanding. Retrieved Apr 2, 2011, from Articles on MBTI ® & Personality Type
applications: Personality Type in Education:
http://www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_articles4.html
Kohn, L. T. (1997). Methods in Case Study Analysis. The Center for Studying Health System Change.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning Style and Disciplinary Difference. The Modern American College:
Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and Changing Reality, 232-255.
Kolmos, A., & Holgaard , J. (2004). Learning styles of science and engineering students in problem and project based education.
Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. (2006). Learning styles of science and engineering students in problem and project based education. In F. Fink, Book of Abstracts (pp. 69-69). Sense Publishers.
Kraus-Srebrić, E., & Kentrić, D. (1981). A six-tier cake: an experiment with self-selected learning tasks. ELT Journal, 36(1), 19-23.
Kuncheva, L. I. (2004). Combining Pattern Classifiers: Methods and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, G. D. (1997 ). Looking at Type and Learning Styles . CAPT, Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.
Lawrence, G. D. (2009). People Types and Tiger Stripes Using Psychological Type to Help
Students Discover their Unique Potential, 4th Edition . CAPT .
Lehman, M. (2011). The Contribution of Scaffolded Self-Selected Reading to Third-Grade
Students‘ Reading Motivation and Achievement. Retrieved May 3, 2012, from http://www.scaffoldedselfselectedreading.com/upload/Lehman_Final_3_16.pdf
Litzinger, T. A., Lee, S., Wise, J., & Felder, R. (2007). A Psychometric Study of the Index of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309-319 .
