International Journal of Education and Pedagogy (IJEAP) eISSN: 2682-8464 | Vol. 4 No. 4 [December 2022]
Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijeap
LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING MODALITIES OF STUDENTS AMIDST THE NEW NORMAL IN COTABATO
STATE UNIVERSITY, SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES
Franklin P. Tizon1* and Belen Y. Lopina2
1 2 Cotabato State University, PHILIPPINES
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Article Information:
Article history:
Received date : 6 December 2022 Revised date : 20 December 2022 Accepted date : 26 December 2022 Published date : 30 December 2022
To cite this document:
Tizon, F. P., & Lopina, B. Y. (2022).
LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING MODALITIES OF STUDENTS AMIDST THE NEW NORMAL IN COTABATO STATE UNIVERSITY, SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES. International Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(4), 135-145.
Abstract: This study aimed to identify Cotabato State University students’ preferred learning modes and learning styles. This was mainly descriptive and served to describe the study’s variables. Cotabato State University first-year students and college of arts and sciences instructors served as the respondents and were chosen using stratified random sampling. Data was gathered through online platforms, particularly google forms, and the interview was done through google meet. Teacher-respondents were gathered for focus group discussion and grouped according to their specialization. A standardized research instrument was used. Statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, mean, and rank were used in interpreting the gathered data. The study suggested that students may have utilized each recognized learning method, given the grand mean of 4.00.
They agreed with every indicator in the study’s research tool. Additionally, it was discovered that auditory learning, which had the greatest mean value and was the most prevalent in the sample, differed slightly from kinesthetic learning. The favored learning method, however, was a self- learning kit (the hard copy of modules). The opposite was true; the instructor responders preferred video recordings of the subject. The respondents recommended that students’
learning styles be identified before the start of class and that teachers carry out activities that are appropriate for the student’s preferred learning mode, which is auditory. The administration should also develop guidelines that take students’ needs into account.
1. Introduction
The different condition calls for another method. One of the sectors greatly affected by this global pandemic is education. A new mode of learning was introduced. Both teachers and students faced challenges, for there was a shift from traditional face-to-face interaction to online learning.
Undeniably, education has been compromised, especially for those students who barely afford an internet connection at the same time as this new mode of learning.
The pandemic has greatly challenged the philippine educational system. Many institutions have mainstreamed online distance learning as a result. While they are geographically separated from one another during instruction, it shows the teacher enabling learning and encouraging students’ active engagement with various tools accessed through the internet (Llego 2021).
Traditionally, learning is delivered through face-to-face interaction. With the pandemic, learning delivery modalities have been altered. Students may learn through distance learning (modular, online distance learning), blended learning, and homeschooling (Llego 2021).
Conversely, students’ preferred learning methods may influence their academic success (Kolb 1984).
As a result, choosing the right activities for the class and considering the student’s preferred learning methods are equally vital. Learning style is characterized by how various students study. It is a person’s preferred method of taking in, processing, understanding, and remembering information (Kolb, 1984).
2. Literature Review
Educators should remember that learners have diverse learning styles. Although most educators know about learning styles, incorporating them into the classroom has proven difficult. Understanding these learning styles might help you build a classroom where students perform better. Faculty should know other ways to customize student training. How students learn may affect performance. Students succeed when teachers know their learning styles. Student-centered learning enhances teacher- student relationships. Instructors are increasingly used as trainers and learning aids for pupils, notwithstanding their power (Lathan, 2021). This strategy works best when teachers consider students’ learning styles. Students who know their learning styles can adapt. Learning success depends on teaching and learning methods.
As a result, experts have focused on determining the children’s learning preferences, particularly in light of the New Normal. The VARK model of students’ learning styles, developed by Neil Fleming, is commonly used by researchers. VARK stands for Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing Preference, and Kinesthetic. As “preferred learning modes,” the paradigm relates to pupils’ diverse approaches to knowledge interpretation. Visual learners prefer visuals, maps, and graphic organizers to acquire and process new information.
Keywords: Learning Styles, Learning Modalities, Auditory learning style, kinesthetics Learning styles, New Normal, Southern Philippines.
Seminars and group discussions help people who learn best by hearing and talking to understand new information. Students who like to learn by reading and writing can use mnemonics and repetition to help them learn. Most of the time, these students take many notes or read a lot and can write about abstract ideas. Kinesthetic learners understand information better when it is presented through touch.
Cherry (2019) says that these students are “active learners” who learn best through doing. This method considers how students learn best and lets them access information naturally, which can boost their confidence in school. The teacher knows how to include these learning methods in lesson plans and study habits.
In their book Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the Right Tree, Fleming and Baume (2006) provided an overview of the core elements of VARK. They explore how behavior and learning influence students’ chosen learning modes, which should be related to effective learning tactics. The information received through students’ preferred learning modalities shows an improvement in their understanding, motivation, and metacognition levels. To help students understand what is being taught, the teacher should display the students’ information according to their learning preferences.
Rezaeinejad (2015) asserted that a teacher’s comprehension of the student’s learning styles would facilitate the lesson’s delivery so that the students can more easily follow along. The focus of the study was on learning methods and their relationship to academic success among Iranian high school students. It provides novel instructional strategies and promotes academic success. The original distinguishing characteristic and guiding principle of the DepEd K to 12 Basic Education Program in the Philippines complement these findings (2012). The entire teaching structure is intended for the advantage of the student. It focuses primarily on the complete growth and development of the student.
When students feel accepted, respected, and secure, they are more likely to enjoy learning, participate in significant learning activities, and achieve, even if they make mistakes when learning something new. They can direct their education both inside and outside of the classroom.
Psychologists believe there is inadequate evidence to adopt learning-type assessments into normal educational practice. Therefore, scarce educational resources would greatly be allocated to alternate ways to enhance student enrollment. Rohrer and Pashler (2012) argue that it is wrong to presume that all learning styles have been explored due to the lack of methodologically sound research. In some cases, a classroom learning type evaluation study may be needed, but it must be done carefully.
Learning and Individual Differences by Jun Sun (2009) propose that attitude formation in human knowledge affects how learners interact with various learning resources in different learning situations. It suggests that learners’ object-related perceptions, personality traits, and situational perceptions can affect their general attitudes toward learning objects and their specific opinions.
Hatami (2012) also recommends a learning strategy that stresses abilities over strengths. Sternberg and Grigorenko suggest investigating strategies to comprehend, predict, and improve educational attainment and occupational selection, instruction, and placement. People learn differently. Studies show that their “natural, habitual, and preferred strategies for obtaining, processing, and storing new information and abilities” vary (Reid, 1995). China and Australia had different educational systems, according to the report. They are learning objects in specific circumstances. The learner’s views on
events, personality traits, and things are linked to general attitudes toward learning materials and a particular perspective.
2.1 Problem Statement
This study sought to investigate this issue by identifying pupils’ preferred learning modes and styles.
Given that learning is a reciprocal process, the student’s chosen medium will help them adapt to the teaching-learning process. On the other hand, this will explore which methods teachers and students prefer. In addition, it indicated the students’ favorite learning modalities for teachers to consider when selecting a learning mode. It determined the preferred learning modes of the teachers who responded to the survey.
The findings of this study will assist educators, administrators, and students. The study results will provide them with direction for their lesson. Additionally, the student’s preference is considered while determining the learning medium. This is a tremendous aid to students, particularly those struggling with their internet connection.
3. Method
This study’s only purpose was to describe. It merely described the students’ preferred learning modes and learning styles in the context of the new normal. The respondents were teachers in the language department from the College of Arts and Sciences and first-year students at Cotabato State University.
An approach known as stratified random sampling was used to represent each department.
Data was gathered through online platforms and focus group discussions. Coordination with the deans of each department was sought. Upon identification of the respondents, google forms were used to get the data from the respondents. Teacher-respondents were gathered for focus group discussion.
They were grouped based on their field of specialization.
3.1 Materials
The research tool employed was standardized. Based on Dunn’s Model, a modified version of the Standardized Survey questionnaire from the CITE Learning Styles Instrument Murdoch Teacher was used to collect the learning styles data. Thirty items made up the test, classifying pupils’ learning preferences into six categories: visual, aural, kinesthetic, tactile, individual, and group.
3.1.1 Samples
Two hundred first-year students selected through stratified random sampling served as the study’s respondents. The strata were each college. On the other hand, twenty professors teaching Liberal Arts courses or so-called General Education courses were present at the teachers’ session.
3.1.2 Site
The study was conducted at Cotabato State University and teachers in the language department from the College of Arts and Sciences. Each department was represented using a stratified random sampling technique. The college catered to all the general education courses or the liberal arts courses of all the degree programs offered in the University.
3.1.3 Procedures
Respondents were provided brief information about the study and informed that all the data gathered were treated with the utmost confidentiality. This ensured that the respondents gave accurate data and were more accountable in providing their responses. Furthermore, the data was gathered through online platforms and focus group discussions. Coordination with the deans of each department was sought. Upon identifying the respondents, google forms were used to get the respondents’ data.
Teacher-respondents were gathered for focus group discussion. They were grouped based on their field of specialization.
3.2 Measurement
After the data were collected, they were tallied, analyzed, and interpreted using descriptive statistics such as percentile rank, frequency, and mean,
3.3 Data Analysis
3.3.1 Validity and Reliability
Three experts validated this instrument in the field, and pilot testing was conducted on students of the same level as the respondents. Statistical tools such as frequency, percentage, mean, and rank were used in interpreting the gathered data. Interpretation of the descriptive statistics, which was the mean, was based on the following rating scale:
Range of Weighted Mean Description
4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree
3.50-4.49 Agree
2.50-3.49 Undecided
1.50-2.49 Disagree
1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree
4. Results and Discussion
The Learning Styles of Students
The study found that students learn best visually, aurally, kinesthetically, tactilely, in groups, and independently. Thirty items made up this questionnaire on learning styles, five for each style based on Dunn’s model.
Table 3 shows students’ learning styles’ frequency, weighted mean, and description distribution.
Table 3: Frequency, Weighted Mean, and Description Distribution of the Students’ Learning Styles
Learning Styles Weighted
Mean
Description A. Visual
6. I learn better what the teacher writes on the chalkboard. 3.83 Agree 10. When I read instructions, I remember them better. 4.44 Agree
12. I understand better when I read instructions. 4.34 Agree
24. I learn better by reading than by listening to someone. 3.78 Agree 29. I learn more by reading textbooks than by listening to lectures. 3.37 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 3.95 Agree
B. Tactile
11. I learn more when I can make a model of something. 4.00 Agree 14. I learn more when I can make something for a class project 4.12 Agree
16. I learn better when I make drawings as I study. 3.32 Undecided 22. When I build something, I remember what I have learned
better.
4.22 Agree
25. I enjoy making something for a class project. 3.93 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 3.92 Agree
C. Kinesthetic
2. I prefer to learn by doing something in class. 4.12 Agree
8. When I do things in class, I learn better. 4.34 Agree
15. I enjoy learning in class by doing experiments. 4.07 Agree 19. I understand things better when I participate in role-playing. 4.05 Agree
26. I learn best in class when I participate in related activities. 4.36 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 4.20 Agree
D. Auditory
1. When the teacher tells me the instructions, I understand better. 4.34 Agree 7. When someone tells me how to do something in class, I learn it
better.
4.05 Agree
9. I remember things I have heard better in class than I have read. 4.22 Agree 17. I learn better in class when the teacher gives a lecture. 4.56 Strongly Agree 20. I learn better in class when I listen to someone. 3.92 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 4.22 Agree
E. Group
3. I get more work done when I work with others. 4.05 Agree
4. I learn more when I study with a group. 4.27 Agree
5. In class, I learn best when I work with others. 4.05 Agree 21. I enjoy working on an assignment with two or three
classmates.
3.90 Agree
23. I prefer to study with others. 3.73 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 4.00 Agree
F. Individual
13. When I study alone, I remember things better. 4.17 Agree
18. When I work alone, I learn better. 3.71 Agree
27. In class, I work better when I work alone. 3.56 Agree
28. I prefer working on projects by myself. 3.61 Agree
30. I prefer to work by myself. 3.78 Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 3.76 Agree
Grand Mean 4.00 Agree
Legend: Range of Weighted Mean Description
4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree
3.50-4.49 Agree
2.50-3.49 Undecided
1.50-2.49 Disagree
1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree
Table 3 lists the six learning preferences of students as visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual. The item with the greatest weighted mean in the heading “visual” received a score of 4.44, indicating that this statement is accurate.
Students tend to understand better when they see instructions rather than by listening to someone, as revealed in item number 12 with a mean value of 4. 34. Other items under the visual learning style had almost the same mean values and were interpreted the same. The mean values imply that students obtained the said learning styles and accommodated and absorbed information best when books and other printed materials were at hand. This agrees with Tenedero’s findings (2008), as cited by Mobarac (2012) that students are motivated when instructional materials and packages matched to their learning styles are presented. The overall weighted mean, which is 3.95, indicates that students possessed a visual learning style, such as using pictures and images to create their learning.
The statement “children learn more when they can construct a model of anything” has a rate of 4.00 in the tactile learning style, and students concur. This suggests that they liked to learn by imitating others. A mean value of 4.12 was assigned to item 14, which asserts that “children learn better when they can manufacture something for a class project.” This suggests that pupils desired to put what they had learned in the classroom into practice. With a mean score of 3.32, students weren’t sure whether “they learn more when they do pictures as they study.” Students agreed that “they recall what they have learned well when they make something,” with a mean value of 4.22. This shows that they efficiently learned things using their hands to help their sense of touch. The mean score for item 25,
“Students appreciate creating something for a class assignment,” was 3.93. This suggests that the pupils agreed that they enjoyed using their hands to do projects. The overall weighted mean value for tactile learning is 3.92, which shows that students manipulated information using their hands.
According to Syverson (1995), as cited in Mobarac (2012), learning occurs in a dynamic environment where technologies, teachers, students, and materials are interdependently related and interactive.
This finding confirms that idea.
The items almost all had the same mean values, all agreed upon, indicating that the students had kinesthetic learning preferences. The mean value of 4.12 in item 2 showed that students preferred to learn by doing in class. The interpretations for the remaining items in this particular learning method were the same. Students like to learn by doing, and when they actively participate in the process, such as role-playing, they understand more. The weighted average across all students was 4.20, indicating that they learned through the movement of their bodies. This supports the idea that kinesthetic learners retain information better when actively moving and learning in the direction of their large or gross motor muscles (Keys Learning, 1993).
In the auditory learning style, the highest mean value was noted, as revealed in item 17, in which students strongly agree. This implies that students learn better when listening to classroom discussions. This upholds the notion of Haggart (2003) that argument is one of the favorite approaches of students. The remaining items in this area of learning style had the same mean values and were interpreted the same. The mean values indicate that students learn more when they listen to someone, but this learning style would somehow depend on the classroom environment by which students are distracted whenever they hear a noise. Given an overall weighted mean of 4.22, which indicates the respondents’ agreement, the auditory learning style was adopted by the respondents. Meaning students used their natural ability to learn. This supports Haggart’s (2002) assertion that auditory learners prefer to learn by verbal instructions from themselves or others.
In the group learning style, items had the same mean values and were interpreted similarly. The mean values range from 3.56-4.17. All items validate that students agreed to have possessed this particular learning style. This implies that respondents can learn when they are grouped, and more learning is expected when a suitable method is used. This follows the view of Tenedero (1998) that students in another point learn best when working with peers or others. The overall weighted mean of 3.76 indicates that students can focus on learning when they work with others. This agrees with Dunn (1978), who claims that children are naturally highly motivated when paired with friends.
Lastly, the students adopted the individual learning approach, evidenced by item 13’s 4.17 mean value, “Students learn better when they study alone.” Since all the other items had nearly identical mean values and were all accepted by the respondents, they were all interpreted similarly. This highlights that students preferred working alone and were productive when doing so. This supports Tenedero’s (1998) assertion that independent learning requires pupils to work alone at times. The overall weighted mean of 3.76 indicates that students are cognizant of the benefits of independent learning and pay closer attention to what they are learning when working alone. This supports Mobarac’s (2012) assertion that pupils produce more when working independently.
Generally, The grand mean of 4.00 often indicates pupils have adopted each recognized learning method. They accepted all of the indicators in the study’s research instrument. Additionally, as shown in the Table, it was discovered that the sample’s predominant learning style was auditory, which had the highest mean value but only slightly differed from the kinesthetic learning style. This student learning style outcome differs from Mobarac (2012), who indicated visual as the predominant learning type. In light of Midtimbang’s (2013) contention that students’ learning styles in some way depend on their surroundings, this indicates that students had more exposure to listening activities.
The Learning Modality of Students
The favored learning modalities of the students are displayed in Table 2. These techniques are ranked first and have the biggest percentage of self-study kits, at 65%. (hard copies of the modules). Self- learning kits (soft copies of the modules) are a close second with 17%, followed by video recordings on the topics tied for third with 11.5%, PowerPoint presentations on the issues tied for fourth with 3.5%, and online (virtual classrooms) tied for fifth with 3%.
Table 2: Preferred Learning Modality of the Student Respondents
Modalities Percentage Rank
Self-learning Kit (Hardcopy of Modules) 65% 1st
Online (Virtual Class) 3% 5th
Powerpoint on the topics 3.5% 4th
Self-learning Kit (softcopy of the modules) 17% 2nd
Video recordings on the topic 11.5% 3rd
Given the students’ unfavorable views of the online virtual class, the conclusion is no longer unexpected. As seen in the Table, the self-learning kit was their favorite way of education (hardcopy of modules). Using the modules offered by their teachers, it is assumed that they will be able to learn at their own pace. Some of them were related to sound. Notably, they are less likely to enroll in virtual or online classes because they lack access to the necessary technologies, such as laptops, desktop computers, and cell phones.
According to a report published by Bonz Magsambol on July 30, 2020, former Secretary of Education (DepEd) Leonor Briones stated that 8.8 million parents preferred printed modules, followed by blended learning (3.9 million parents), online learning (3.8 million parents), and educational television (1.4 million parents).
The Learning Modality of Teachers
In the education of students, teachers are essential. They are perhaps the people who impact the student’s academic growth, especially in terms of their foundational education. Teachers’ jobs generally involve assisting pupils in learning by conveying knowledge to them and creating an environment in which they can and will learn efficiently. The preferred mode of instruction for the teachers is displayed in the Table below.
Table 3: Preferred Modality of the Teacher-Respondents
Modalities Percentage Rank
Self-learning Kit (Hardcopy of Modules) 20% 2nd
Online (Virtual Class) 12% 4th
Powerpoint on the topics 12% 4th
Self-learning Kit (softcopy of the modules) 16% 3rd
Video recordings on the topic 40% 1st
As indicated in the Table, teachers preferred conducting a class through video recording on the topic with almost half of the respondents (40%), followed by using a self-learning kit or the hardcopy of modules with 20%. Self-learning kits through softcopy of modules were the third with 16%, while online and PowerPoint topics had 12% of the respondents preferring such modality. The results were intriguing since teachers preferred video recording, unlike the students. Perhaps, the video-recorded material/s would unburden the teachers in presenting their lessons, especially if they were handling similar subjects in different classes.
5. Conclusion
The study’s findings revealed that auditory learning was the student respondents’ preferred method of instruction. It is unavoidable that these responders have also used other learning methods. Most students chose a self-learning kit containing a hard copy of their modules as their preferred learning method. This implies that they want the freedom to learn at their speed and independently. Such a choice might also result from the student’s lack of access to resources required for other modalities, particularly online or modalities needing technology or an internet connection. Contrarily, video recording was the favored method for the teacher responders, which was extremely surprising given the role teachers play in shaping students’ overall development. But since these instructors work at the college level, they undoubtedly considered giving students some control over their education.
6. Acknowledgement
The researchers wish to convey their warmest gratitude to Cotabato State University, specifically the research office, for both the financial and technical support. In the same manner, the study would not have been realized without the participation of the respondents and the cooperation of the different deans of the said University.
References
Busilaoco, F.C. and Lao, S.R. (2014) Learning Style and Students’ Achievement in Science.
IAMURE International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7.
Cabual, R. A. (2021) Learning Styles and Preferred Learning Modalities in the New Normal.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=108297
Cherry, K. (2020) How Jung’s Theory of Personality Can Explain How You Learn.
https://www.verywellmind.com/jungs-theory-of-personality-learning-styles-2795160
DavidK. (2000) Learning style Inventory Technical Manual and Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall, New York (NY).
Department of Education K to 12 Basic Education Program (2012). http://www.deped.gov.ph Dobson, J.L. (2010) A Comparison between Learning Style Preferences and Sex, Status, and Course
Performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 34, 197-204.https://do i.org/10.1152/advan.00078.2010
Dunn, R. and Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students through the Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach. Prentice-Hall, New York.
Dunn, R. and Griggs, S. A. (2000) Theory, Practice, and Research: Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Dunn, R. (2003). The Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model and Its Theoretical Cornerstone Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Styles Model Research. St. Johns University’s Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.
Fleming, N. and Baume, D. (2006) Learning Styles Again VARKing up the RIGHT Tree!
Educational Developments, 7, 4-7. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?
ReferenceID=1223937
Ibraheem, Alzahrani and John Woolard. (2003). The Role of the Constructivist Learning Theory and Collaborative Learning Environment on Wiki classroom, and the Relationship between Them (January 2015)
Lathan, J. (2021) Complete Guide to Teacher-Centered vs. Student- Centered.https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/teacher-centered-vs-student-centered-learning Llego, M. A. (2020) DepEd Learning Delivery Modalities for 2021-
2022https://www.teacherph.com/deped-learning-delivery-modalities/
Magsambol, B. (2020) 8.8 Million Parents Prefer Modular Learning for Studentshttps://www.rappler.com/nation/deped-says-parents-prefer-modular-learning-students Rezaeinejad, M., Azizifar, A. and Gowhary, H. (2015) The Study of Learning Styles and Its
Relationship with Educational Achievement among Iranian High School Students. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 218-224.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.509
