FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Basically, this research is intended to identify and describe the learning styles profile of the students of EED UMK. The information about the learning styles profile of the students can be used both by the department and the lecturers to facilitate the students’ learning. Each student who becomes the sample of this research can also use the information individually as a way of self understanding.
This research involves 208 respondents, comprising students of semester II, IV, VI, and VIII and above in academic year 2012/2013. The instrument used to tap the learning styles is Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire by Felder and Silverman. The respondents are also asked to give information about their gender and subject preference.
Now that learning styles are predicted to have relationship with gender and subject preference, the data about the learning styles of the students are further analyzed in accordance with the two variables. The statistical technique used to analyze if learning styles depends on gender and if subject preference depends on
learning styles is Chi-square Test Independence. The level of significance (
α
)which is used in this test is .05, in the proper degree of freedom (df).
A. Finding: data description
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
25 2009 32 110 F Speaking 1 11 1 3
26 2009 32 111 F Speaking 1 9 1 7
27 2009 32 114 F Reading 3 3 1 3
28 2009 32 117 F Speaking 5 5 11 9
29 2009 32 121 F Speaking 5 9 7 1
30 2009 32 132 M Reading 5 7 11 1
31 2009 32 134 F Writing 1 1 1 3
32 2009 32 148 F Speaking 5 9 1 7
33 2009 32 152 F Speaking 1 11 9 5
34 2009 32 172 M Writing 1 5 3 3
35 2009 32 178 M Speaking 5 5 1 1
36 2009 32 183 F Speaking 1 1 3 3
37 2009 32 198 F Writing 7 5 1 3
38 2009 32 199 F Writing 5 1 1 3
39 2009 32 240 F None 7 5 7 5
40 2009 32 247 F None 1 3 3 5
41 2009 32 248 F Listening 1 1 5 1
42 2009 32 267 F Reading 1 5 1 1
43 2009 32 304 F Speaking 3 3 5 1
B. Discussion of the Finding
Analyzing Table 4.1 to 4.4 and interpreting the scores in the tables, we get Appendix 2 and from Appendix 2 we get the general learning styles profile of the students of EED UMK. Further analysis of Appendix 2 yields the learning styles based on gender and subject preference variables.
1. General Learning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK
Table 4.5 below describes the general learning styles of the students of
Table 4.5 General Learning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK
LS Dimensions and Categories
Table 4.6 Summary of the GeneralLearning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK
General Category of
Learning Styles Dimension f %
Balanced 500 60.10
Table 4.7 General Learning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK for Each of the Four Learning Styles Dimensions
Learning Styles Category f %
Very Strong Reflective 1 0.48
Total 208 100.00
Very Strong Sequential 7 3.37
Very Strong Global 0 0.00
Knowing the students’ learning style will help us plan for learning tasks such as language learning. Therefore, knowing the fact that balanced is the most dominant category for all learning styles dimensions of the students of EED UMK will actually make both the students and the lecturers easier to facilitate the students’ learning. This is because balanced category of learning styles is the most flexible category of learning styles. Students who are balanced can perceive, organize, process, and understand information in both dimensions of the learning styles more easily than those who are moderate, let alone very strong in one dimension. For example, a balanced verbal – visual student can perceive, organize, process, and understand information transmitted either verbally or visually or both visually and verbally with the same possibility of being successful. In this way the lecturers can choose either to deliver the information, i.e. the learning material, either visually or verbally. However, the wiser and safer choice is delivering it both verbally and visually.
In accordance with the implementation of competency-based curriculum in EED UMK, in which learning is student-centered (SCL), understanding the learning styles of the students becomes more crucial. It will make the teacher easier to guide the students to use the best possible method of inquiry and discovery. For the students themselves, understanding their own learning styles
will also make them easier to avoid the learning strategies which are not suitable with their profile.
Discussing number and percentage, technically, the department should give more attention to 30.41% of the students who are moderate and 9.50% of those who are very strong in one dimension. And between the two categories, students with a very strong preference for one dimension need more attention than the former ones. This is because they may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference. For example, from Table 4.7 we can see that 4.33% of the students are very strong active. If this fact is held as a hypothesis, the teacher should create a learning environment which gives chance to the students to be active and to work in group. This is the same with the fact that 10.10% of the students are very strong sensing and 18.75% are very strong visual. Fortunately, there is no student who is very strong verbal and very strong global. By paying attention to the students who have moderate and very strong preference for one dimension, those who are balanced will automatically covered.
2. Relationship between the Learning Styles of the Students of EED UMK and Gender
As it has been pointed ot in the preceding section, men and women are basically different in many aspects, both physically and mentally. Gender is also a variable which is believed to be one that affects learning process as well as learning performance. In more detail, It means that learning strategies and style are connected with the differences between males and females.
Continuation of Table 4.8
gender variable as described in Table 4.9.
summary of Table 4.9, in which the percentage of the male who are balanced is 60.51 while that of the female is 59.89. Furthermore, for moderate and very strong categories the percentages are relatively the same for both male and
female: 9.06% and 9.71% respectively.
Table 4.10 Summary of the GeneralLearning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK Based on Gender Variable
Categories of LS Dimensions
Male Female
f % f %
Balanced 167 60.51 333 59.89
Moderate 84 30.43 169 30.40
Very Strong 25 9.06 54 9.71
Total 276 100 556 100
From Table 4.9 we then analyze the relationship between gender variable and learning styles dimension, to see if there is a significant relationship between learning styles dimension and gender. More specifically, the analysis is done to answer the question “Is learning styles dimension affected by gender?” To do this
we did Chi-square test of independence in the level of significance (
α
) .05 anddegree of freedom (df) 4. The complete result of the analysis is presented in Appendix 3 while the summary is presented in Table 4.11.
In the level of significance (
α
) .05 and degree of freedom (df) (c – 1)(r – 1)= (2 – 1)(5 – 1) = 4, the X2(critical) is 9.488. Therefore, all the X2sdo not fall in
sample data, the probability of the students of having certain learning styles dimension is independent on the gender of the students.
Table 4.11 Summary of the Result of Chi-square Test of Independence between Gender and Learning Styles Dimensions at X2.05; df = 4
= 9.488 Independent
Variable Dependent Variable
X2
(obtained) Conclusion
Gender Active - Reflective dimension 5.579
not significant at
α
.05; df = 4Gender Sensing - Intuitive dimension 9.148 not significant at
α
.05; df = 4Gender Visual - Verbal dimension 8.432 not significant at
α
.05; df = 4Gender Sequential - Global dimension 8.292 not significant at
α
.05; df = 4The fact that there is no significant relationship between learning styles and gender as demonstrated by the results of the chi-square test of independence which is presented in Table 4.11 ( at X2.05; df = 4 = 9.488) is also an advantage for
EED UMK. This will make it easier for both students and lecturers to arrange the learning processes because, in terms of learning styles, they do not have to pay much attention to gender.
3. Relationship between the Learning Styles of the Students of EED UMK and Subject Preference
Appendix 2. From Appendix 2 we can see that there are 6 subjects which are preferred by the students, i.e. Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Grammar, and Statistics. However, there are also some students who do not choose any subject and for them we classify as choosing None. To simplify the analysis, we merge the students who choose Grammar and Statistics into 1 preference, that is, choosing Others. In this way, as a whole, there are 6 subject preferences: 1) Listening, 2) Speaking, 3) Reading, 4) Writing, 5) None, and 6) Others. Meanwhile, the learning styles, as it has been described in the preceding part of this report, are classified into 4-scale dimensions, each of which is classified into 5 categories (balanced, moderate for 2 dimensions, and very strong for 2 dimensions).
From Table 4.12 we can see that balanced is still the most dominant category for all learning styles dimensions. Among the balanced categories, however, sequential – global dimension is the highest (70.67%), followed by active – reflective (62.50%), sensing - intuitive (57.21%), and the lowest visual – verbal (49.52%).
Table 4.12 also indicates that for the learning styles dimensions which are dominated by balanced category, the very strong categories are minimal. For example, for sequential – global dimension in which the balanced category covers 70.67%, the very strong category covers only 0.48% (0.48% for very strong sequential and 0% for very strong global). This also happens in active – reflective
Table 4.12 The Learning Styles Profile of the Students of EED UMK Based on Subject Preference Listening Speaking Reading Writing None Others
The next step is analyzing the relationship between the learning styles dimension of the students of EED UMK and their subject preference. This is done to investigate if there is a significant dependency relationship between subject preference and learning styles or to answer the question: “Is subject preference affected by learning styles?”
To calculate the value of X2(obtained) the degree of freedom (df) is (6 –
1)(5 – 1) = 20. The level of significance (
α
) used in the test is .05. The result ofthe test is presented in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13 Summary of the Result of Chi-square Test of Independence between Subject Preference and Learning Styles Dimension at X2.05; df = 20 = 31.410
preference Active - Reflective dimension 22.62
not significant at
α
.05; df = 20 Subjectpreference Sensing - Intuitive dimension 32.081 significant at
α
.05; df = 20based on these sample data, the probability of the students of having certain subject preference is not wholly dependent on Felder and Silverman learning styles dimensions; only for Sensing – Intuitive and Visual – Verbal dimensions subject preference depends on. For these 2 learning styles dimensions we can say that the students’ subject preference depends on their learning styles dimensions.
The complete result of the Chi-square test of independence between the learning styles of the students of EED UMK and their subject preference is presented in Appendix 4. Table 4.13 is the summary of Appendix 4.
Now that not all learning style dimensions have significant relationship with subject preference, both students and leccturers should pay attention to this phenomenon. This is because all students must take all of the subjects that have been included in the curriculum. For example, the students whose learning styles are Sensing – Intuitive and Visual – Verbal have less freedom than those whose learning styles are Active – Reflective and Sequential – Global, because Active – Reflective and Sequential – Global dimensions have no significant relationship with subject preference, while Sensing – Intuitive and Visual – Verbal do.
As a final remark, we have to know that Chi Square Analysis is used to see whether paired observations on two variables, expressed in a contingency table, are independent of each other and that it has some shortcomings:
instance, those whose subject preference is listening differ from those whose subject preference is speaking, reading, and writing.
2. Chi Square analysis cannot show which group is more and which one is less dominant. Therefore, we cannot see whether male is more dominant than female students or whether those who like listening, speaking, and reading is more dominant than those who like writing.
