SaftanJryyit

SaftanJryyit
:'P Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY AND LEARNII{G STYLES ON
I:iGINEERING STUDENTS'ACHIEVEMENT IN AN ENGLISH COURSE'
By
Norlida Ahmad
e-mel: norli@usm.my
AmirYazid Ali
e-mel
:
meamir@eng.usm.my
Puteri Rohani Megat Abdul Rahim
e
-me L' put er inmar t@ho tmail.
c
om
Abstrak
I an d ( I 9 9 3) unt uk m emp e r b a i ki p e n c ap a i an p e I aj ar, g ay a p eng aj ar an
dan gaya pembelajaran perlulah saling lengkap melengkapi, Justeru,
pengetahuan mengenai personaliti dan gaya belajar pelajar penting supaya
M enur ut Hy
guru dapat menyesuaikan gaya pengajaran mereka untuk memenuhi keperluan
pembelajaran pelojar. Dalam kajian ini, kami cuba melihat sejauh mana
personaliti dan goya belajar sekumpulan pelajar kejuruteraan mempengaruhi
pencapaian mereka di dalam kelas bahasa Inggeris. Sebuah soal selidik
personaliti yang diubahsuai dari Teori Personaliti (Eysenck, 1965) dan senarai
semakberkenaangayabelajarpelajarberdasarkan'InferentialLearningTheory'
(Kolbs, 1984) telah diberi kepada 97 orang pelajar tahun satu kejuruteraan
yang mendaftar dalam kursus Academic English (LSP 300). Kertas kerja ini
akan membincangkan dapatan kajian dan pandangan bagaimana untuk
mempertingkatkan pencapaian pelajar berdasarkan personaliti dan gaya belajar
mereka. Semoga dapatan ini dapat membantu guru mewujudkan persekitaran
pembelajaran yang lebih sensitif kepada kehendak pelajar untuk
mempertingkatkan
p embel aj
aran
mer eka
terutamanyq dal am b ahas a Ingger is.
lntroduction
It
furst educators are aware that students vary in the ways they learn. Thus, attention should
Ir
si\,en to learners and how they learn. In the teaching and learning of English as the
5e;ond or foreign language (ESL/EFL), there should be less emphasis on teacher and
Baching but more on learners and learning (Lessard-Clouston, 1997). The traditional
miitions of teachers teach and learners learn is not always true. This has compelled ressarchers to focus their attention on the process of learning (Wenden, l99l). Wenden
:';rther stipulates that researchers can find out more about what is learned from what is
,r;:rually taught and how it is learned. This is because the methods (how) and the reasons
, n hr ) learners learn are as important as what they learn.
1r a rypical Malaysian classroom, the teaching and learning of English is still very much
t. rirsion ofthis paper was presented at The Malaysian International
r*.:.rng (MICELT) 2002 organized by Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Conference on English Language
39
SahaaaJn%rr&l
DP.
Jitid 3, Bit. 2/2003
academic and exam oriented. Many teachers are still using the traditional teaching approach and students are assumed to learn uniformly or in accordance to the teachers,
ways. Those who are unable to fit into the teachers' teaching methods are likely to face
difficulties in learning the language. This might be one of the reasons why students fail or
are less motivated to learn English. Hence, teachers need to consider individual differences since we know that individuals not only differ in what they learn but also how and
why they learn or don't learn (Sim Seng Wan, 2000). Learners can benefit tremendously
if a substantial proportion of the available formal learning time is given to address learning
styles diversity and teachers try to construct their instructions to adapt to this diversity in
learning' Consequently, knowledge of students'preferred learning styles and p".ronulity
could prompt teachers to design more effective instructions that address individual differ-
,
ences. This insight would put them in a better position to implement a more learnercentered approach in teaching.
j
Cohen (1990) claims that a number of things taught in school are not learned by the stu- j
dents, or at least not learned in the way that the teacher had envisioned. In other words.
the content of instruction or teaching strategies may be inappropriate for certain l.urn"rr,
I
depending on their level of language proficiency, personality and their individual learnine
I
styles. If this happens, students struggle to adapt themselves to their teachers' teachini I
style, the activities and materials that the teachers have prepared for them. In
I
cases students may just give up
I
trying.
"rtr"*!
I
Teachers who do not recognize students'different learning styles, may discog.u*. ur|
dents from developing and exploring new strategies, and in doing so limit studentr, u*ur"|
ness oftheir cognitive capabilities (Wenden, 1991). This lack of awareness obviously limits
I
an individual's ability in a situation requiring new learning strategies. In addition, iiteacn|
ers' teaching strategies do not match learners' cognitive capabilities or learners' learnine
I
strategies, the emotional toll may be great. Therefore it is very important that due attentioi
I
'be
paid to active learning that considers the learning styles aiu"rsity of the students in the
I
English
classrooms.
Learning and individuat
I
differences
I
I
I
I
|
|
I
I
I
I
Most educators recognize that understanding the ways in which people learn is a t<ey ete|
mentto understand students'satisfaction in learning and consequently, their educational imI
There are several functions of learning. According to Eysenck ( 1990), two main functions
of leaming are the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of principles of behaviour,
discipline and character. We are aware that intelligence and personality of students pfuy
significant roles in meeting the goals of learning. Teachers and lecturers must gin. utt"ntion to both social and biological aspects oftheir students, as genetic factors ur.-u. i*portant in determining intelligence as personality. The relevance of intelligence to acadernic
achievement is obvious (Anthony, 1970). However, how personality is;elated to achievement is not clear to teachers or lecturers. That is why the relationships of personality and
academic achievement remain the concern of researchers (Elliot, 1972;Entwistle, l-972).
Every student has his own style in perceiving, conceptualizing, acquirt"-
t"a"
:;*.""
I
DP Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
Eaftaoalnggaab
nation, forming ideas, processing, memorizing and forming value judgments (Hickson &
Baltimore, 1996). In the classroom, each student has his own unique personality and motivatbnal factors (Collinson, 2000). These two elements will affectthe way they respond to the
rhool environment and system and in acquiring the basic educational requirement and skills.
lesearch in educational psychology has been directed to identifu the effects of individual
differences in learning styles. Learning theorists generally agree that curriculum and iniructional strategies should be adapted to accommodate these individual differences (Burrows Horton & Oakland, 1997\.In Malaysian educational system, schools and universities
under the ever-increasing pressure to meet highei academic standards. Thus, educaare becoming increasingly aware that it is important and essential to recognize the
rry in which the students leam in order to improve their academic performance.
It
are two types ofpersonality as categorised by carl Jung (1923). They are extrovert
introvert personalities. An extrovert person tends to like socializing, prefers activities,
is friendly, a risk taker, and an impulsive and open-minded person. He likes learning
discussion or in groups. on the other hand, an introvert person tends to focus
his inner world. He dislikes involvement with other people or detests communicawith people that he is not familiar with. An introvert is usually reflective and defensive.
is not as aggressive or temperamental as an extrovert. Unlike extroverts who are
dominant (carver and Scheieq 2000) in any group discussion, introverts are pas-
listeners.
researchers have investigated the relationships between personality and academic
(Engler, 1979; Furneaux,1962; Gordon, 1961). The findings showed that
do better in examinations and acquire better grades. The results also show a
g correlation between these two variables. In language acquisition, it was proposed
extroverts learn better than introverts as they could easily acquire exposure to the
hguageandinteractwithotherspeakers(Ellis,l985). Naiman(1978)ascitedinO'Malley
Chamot (1990) also claims that extroversion personality is desirable for language
rquisition as compared to introversion personality. Generally, learning styles either biobgical or developmental impose a set of personal characteristics that make certain teachfu or learning strategy effective for some and ineffective for others.
d
Learning Styles
$ome researchers suggest that learning styles refer to individual's characteristic mode of
Fining, processing and storing information (Davidson, 1990; De Bello, 1990). Kolb (1985)
rcerted that learning style is a result of past experience, hereditary equifment and the
fuands of present environment combining to produce individual orientations to a variety of
harning modes. Learning style also refers to the ways students concentrate, process, internlize and remember academic information or skills. It often varies with age, achievement
lvel, global versus analytic processing, preference and gender. Leaming style theorists have
rbo identified and defined prefened student sensory modalities (visual, tactile and auditory).
4t
fiaAaaahnggstia
DP.
Jilid 3, Bil, 2/2003
]
Past research on learning style preference and academic achievement tend to support the
learning style theory. Students do manifest significant variations in how they best learn in
l
a
seffing (Orsak, 1990; Andrews, 1990; Carbo & Hodges, 1988; Doyle & I
I
classroom
Rutterford, 1984). The samples include gifted students, participation of students in regular I
education curriculum and students who are in special education. In researches done by I
Orsak (1990) and Doyle and Rutterford (1984), the learning style preference and academic I
is
achievement relationship seems to be relatively consistent. In addition, it is found that there
I
significant ilifference in learning style preference in bothhigh and low achieving students.
I
Researchers also investigate the consistent patterns of learning style preference for high, I
middle and low achieving students. Smith and Holliday ( 1 986), Ricca ( I 983) and Wasson I
( 1 980) found that the high achieving students prefer independent study, they are signifi|
cantly more self-motivated, persistent, responsible and prefer tactile rather than auditory |
instruction. They learned best through self-direction, flexibility and need minimum struc- |
ture and lecture. Middle and low achieving groups learn bestthrough group discussion and I
fieldwork. In order to maintain attention in learning they prefer variety and mobility of I
instructions. Generally low achievers have poor auditory memory. When they learn visu- I
ally, it is usually through pictures, drawings, symbols, graphs, comics and cartoons. They I
dislike reading textbook. Their inability to remember facts through discussion, lecture or I
reading contributes to low achievers' low performance in conventional schools as most I
instruction in conventional schools is delivered by teachers talking and students listening or I
reading (Milgram, Dunn & Price,
1983)
Learning
|
Preference
I
Kolb's (1934) stated that each student has one main style, which tends to be fairly stable I
overtime. However, the style may be modified with experiences, or in a classroom where I
the preferred style is not encouraged, one has to change to try to learn. It is advisable that I
lebturers and teachers understand each preference in order to develop an understanding I
of how students may respond to lessons. In this model, four leaming preference are iden- |
and
::'*T;,."Tverger
ac
commod ator. A bri er
de
scripti on
*,n.
""'
||l*t_#
I
I
I
|
arts.
I
il. Assimilator.
I
The greatest strength is the ability to create theoretical models. This person seems to learn I
bestthrough inductive reasoning, organizing information, and assimilatingdisparate obser- |
vations into an integrated explanation, often disregardingthe facts that they do not fit with I
the theory. Assimilators love and enjoy abstract argument or assignments, for example, I
creating action plans to solve problems or situations. They prefer abstract conceptualization !
doresearchandpranning' and are
"o***u**'"
;:1,:'ff:lT:r"H;ffi:Jit"Jrriketo
The greatest strength is the ability to assimilate disparate observations. This person seems
to learn best through brainstorming, which allows viewing concrete situations from many
perspectives, and the use of imagination. Divergers tend to be emotional, have broad cultural interests, and often specialize inthe
I
E
I
,"
Jitid 3, Bit.
2/2003
*arta&fiqsaiia
lfr"o"W"nunLsthepracticalapplicationofideas,theabilitytosolveproblems.
I lhis person seems to learn best through hypothetical-deductive reasoning in situations
I
!
I
!
nrch as conventional learning where there is one correct answer or solution to a problem.
Convergers learn through abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. They
pttf.t concrete answers and are relatively unemotional, prefer to deal with things instead
of.people, and tend to have narrow technical interests, often specializing in the physical
j=o=--t=='n*o*^oo*o,
shength is doing things, carrying out plans and involving self in new experiI m" greatest
person
seems to learn best through intuitive trial-and-error experimenting or
f cnces. This
to
immediate
circumstances. Accommodators prefer to be risk takers who thrive
rdapting
!
action
and
new
experience.
m
They are at ease with people, but sometimes seen as
!
as they rely heavily on others for information instead of asserting their own
inpatient
!
ability. They tend to be found in technical or practical "action-orGnted" jobs
!. lalytical
tr nrch as marketins and sales.
I!
I
I
I
!
f
!
I
!
!
!
n
vlew of all the theories discussed so far, we hope to identifu the common learning style
Feference and personality of engineering students so that we could use this knowledge to
doigt more effective instructions that address individual differences. This insight would
Xtp put teachers in a better position to implement a more learner-centered approach in
taching. Teachers could differentiate the types of tasks and instructions to comply with
th" different learning styles of the students. When having cooperative learning groups,
lachers can group students together based on their learning styles. Students with similar
ryt.t could learn the task in the ways that best meet their needs and could produce
different things to show their learning. On the other hand, teachers could also group
nrdents with different styles together to get the sharing of ideas from different perspectives. Therefore, it is very important that lecturers and teachers understand each learning
order to deverop an understanding of how students mav respond to'
] :::::"'
1 n"roord"r,,
JJ,*,**ntsinthisstudywerefirstyearengineeringstudentsenrolledintheAca-
J
J
J
I
J
I
I
If
I
&mic English
course (LSP 300). 97 students (21 females andT6males) from the schools
ofMechanical, Electric and Electrical andAerospace engineering participated in this study.
Their age ranges between 19 and 21 years old. There are 54 Chinese, T Indians and 36
Uatays and all of them scored band 4 in Malaysian University English Test (MUET). The
nain objective of the study is to find out how much students' personality and leaming style
influence their performance in their English subject. The study also attempts to determine
{D *nat tYpe of personality do majority of the engineering students have and (ii) what
harning style do majority ofthe engineering students preferred.
I.'
I
IF
Eafraaa.1nggpiia
DP.
Jilid 3, Bit. 2/2003
Methods
The respondents were given a set of questionnaires consisted of 2l items (yes/no) on
personality types based on Eysenck's Theory of Personality (1990) and ZZ iiems (with
Likert's scale) on learning styles based on Kolb's Inferential Learning Theory (19g5) in
the middle of the semester.
The items on the questionnaires were first given to a group consisted of 20 students enrolled
in LSP 3001 Corrections were made to items that students found confusing. At the end of
the semester, the students' grades in the English course (LSP 300) were recorded. The
data
collected were then tabulated using the statistical packages (Excel and SpSS Version l0).
Results
The data were analyzed based on three key determinant factors (i) the grades obtained in
the English course, (ii) the leaming styles of the students and (iii) theii personality type.
The first test is to determine the personality traits of students majoring in engineering. The
result on the personality scores is shown in Table l. Those scoring 10 or below are ctnsidered introvert and those scoring I I or higher are considered extrovert.
Table
l:
Freauency and Percentage Distribution on The personalitv scores
Personality-score
Introvert
Extrovert
From table 2,
it
Frequency
Percentage
5-10
15
tt
t5.46
82
85.53
-20
can be said that ma-
jority of engineering students from the
sample are having extrovert personality, with the mode ofthe scores hovering between 11 and 14. The table
shows that only 15.5 % of engineer-
Personalitv-score
Frequency
Valid
Percent
5
I
6
I
1.0
7
2.1
1.0
ing majors are introverts while the rest
8
2
4
(84.5%) are extroverts.
9
I
1.0
l0
6
6.2
Table 2:
Frequenqt On The Personaliy Scores
The second analysis is on the learning
style of engineering students. A cross
lt
34
12
10
0.3
t3
t4
t2
1l
2.4
l5
9
9.3
l6
lt
lt
I1.3
2
2.1
2
2.1
t7
l8
l9
tabulation table was produced as in table
n
J.
Total
44
l3
4.1
1.3
I1.3
1.0
s7
100.0
DP.
Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
SoAaoaJng*eti6
Table 3: Learning Styles Of Engineering Students
Learning Style
Valid
Frequency
Percent
10.3
Converger
(1.00)
10
Diverser
(2.00)
16
16.5
Assimilator
(3.00)
51
52.6
Accommodator
(4.00)
J
Unsure
(s.00)
t7
t7.5
97
r00.0
Total
3.1
Table 3 indicates that more than halt (52.6%) of the students in the sample are assimilators
rn their learning style. The divergers trailed second with a percentage of 16.5 o%. Perusal
firough raw data indicates that most of those who are unsure have also indicated to be
assimilators. Further analyses on learning style by race indicate that there are similar
trends among the three major races (Table 4).
Table 4: Summary qf Learning Snles
RACE
4:cording to Race
Learning style
Chinese
Indian
2
Converger
(1.00)
6
Diverger
(2.00)
t2
Assimilator
(3.00)
22
J
Total
Malay
2
10
4
16
26
51
I
J
Accommodator (4.00)
2
Unsure
t2
2
3
l7
54
7
36
97
(5.00)
Total
The third analysis is to find
out whether learning styles
have any effect on the score
rn the English course. The
rcst is to find conelations beseen the two factors. Figure I shows a box plot graph
between the two factors.
Oe
T-T-T
l.I,-I
_L
o
!(u
Fiqure L' Correlation ben,,een learning s\tles and
Enqlish Course Grades
o)
(D
g
f
o
o
l_
.c
,9
(')
c
o
T
ot2
40
10
16
51
3
17
1.00
2.OO
3.00
4.00
5.00
learning style
45
fiaAa&Xnggelia
DP. Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
From figure 1, it can be visually observed that Divergence-learning style had slightly better
score (mean) with lesser standard deviation in comparison to Convergence and Assimilators learning styles. The accommodative learning styles seem to perform rather conseryatively. Further analysis using Pearson corelations test was done as shown in Table 5.
Table
5:
Relationshio Between Lqarni.np Stvles and Per_formance
in Enelish Course Correlations
,
English
course
grade
Correlations
English course
grade
ANOVA
English
course
grade
Pearson
1.000
Correlation
Sie. (2+ailed)
Learning style
Learning
style
-.M7
.&7
Pearson
-.M7
Correlation
.&7
1.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
n
s7
Sum ofSquares
df
Mean Square
F'
Sig.
128.071
4
32.018
.701
.593
Within Groups
4201.616
n
4s.67A
Total
4329.686
%
Between Groups
Table 5 shows that there is no significant correlation between learning styles and performance in the English course. The ANOVA test confirms the non-correlation between the
two factors. It is not viable to perform an analysis on personality traits to English course
grade, because majority of the students are extrovert. Any type of testing for the two
factors will result to inconclusiveness.
Discussion
Personalify traits
It is common practice in Malaysian secondary schools that the better students are streamed
to science and the lesser achievers are streamed into arts classes. This trend continues at
university where only the better students are allowed to take technical or medical subjects.
As Engineering is a technical subject, the engineering students are known to be better
academic achievers than those taking other courses as majors. The result tends to be in
agreement with the findings of Engler ( I 979), Furneaux (1962), and Gordon ( I 96 I ), where
extroverts tend to perform better in examinations.
46
)P. Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
SahaaoJn#oio
Learning styles
Engineering is a course that requires its students to be able to conceptualize complex and
ssstract scenarios and also requires the students to amalgamate information and concepts
l,: form models. Inference and deductive reasoning are important methods of finding a
:.:lution to an engineering problem. Assimilators and convergers learning styles seem to be
s.ritableforstudyingtechnicalsubjects. Theresultsofthisstudyshowsthatmorethanhalf
: f the engineering students have the learning style that are suitable for studying engineerrre namely the assimilator.
Learning styles correlation with test performance
The results of the third analysis tends to
differ from the conclusion made by Orsak (1990),
{ndrew (1990), Carbo and Hodges (1988), Doyle and Rutterford (1984), that learning style
:nd students' achievement are significantly correlated, especially in this particular case. The
:esults show no significant difference between learning styles to achievement in the English
;"lurse grades for Engineering students. Maybe this is due to the fact that English is not a
:echnical subject and if another engineering subject is used to examine correlation, a different
;,rnclusion could be the result. Another possible reason is maybe because of the way the
r,rurSe, LSP 300, is taught. Tutors need to consider and tailor the lessons according to the
learning style in order to get better students' achievement.
'mdents'
Implication
leachers need to consider individual differences since we know that individuals not only
Jiffer in what they learn but also how and why they learn or don't learn. Accordingly,
i;iowing students' prefened learning styles and personality can prompt teachers to design
nore effective instructions that address individual differences. This insight would also
:elp teachers in designing a more learner-centered approach in their teaching.
\\-hen it comes to teaching students majoring in technical subjects like in this case, engineering students, teachers have to bear in mind that these students learn best through
:nductive reasoning, organizing information, and assimilating contrasting olservations into
an integrated explanation. As many of them are assimilators, they would enjoy abstract
argument or assignments, for example, creating action plans to solve problems or situa:ions. These students would like to do research and planning. Since majority of engineering
students are having extrovert personality, lessons should also consider their preference for
3ctivities that include group work and discussion. In teacher training programmes, train:es need to be exposed to the many theories and models of students' personality and
learning styles so that they too would be aware of the students' diversity.
47
SaAaooJnggatil
DP.
Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
Conclusion
In this study, we attempt to investigate to what extend personality and learning styles of a
group of engineering students influence their achievement in English language. The findings can help teachers teaching such students establish a learning environment that is more
sensitive to the students' characteristics and learning style in order to enhance their learning experience especially in English classes. Teachers cannot expect to teach every student the sarile way because engineering students have different learning styles than the
students majoring in arts. Awareness of the students' personality and learning style is
important because teachers can then adapt their instructional style according to their students' needs. With an understanding of the role of learning style and personality traits in
language learning, teachers can assist learners in becoming more aware of their learning
style and the range of possible strategies that they can use successfully to facilitate language learning. Therefore it is very important that due attention be paid to active learning
that considers the learning style diversity of the students in the English classrooms.
Limitation
In this study we are largely oriented towards quantitative data. In order to get a true
picture of learner's learning styles and personality a variety of research methods, both
quantitative and qualitative should be employed.
Reference
Andrews, R.H. ( 1990). The Development Of Learning Style Program in a Low Socioeconomic, Underachieving North Carolina Elementary School. Journal Of Reading,
'Writing & Learning Diabilities International.6
(3)
r
307-314.
l
Anthony, W.G. (1977). The Development of Extraversion and Ability : An analysis of
Rushton's Longitudinal data. British Journal Of Educational Pcychologt.47.l%-1
j
196.
Burrows-Horton, C. & Oakland, T (1997). Temperament-Based Learning StylesAs Moderators Of Academic Achievement . Adolescence i2 (125). l3l-142.
Carbo, M & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning style Strategies Can Help Students At Risk
Teaching Exceptional Children,20. 55-58.
l
Carver, Charles S. and ScheieE Michael
F. (2000). Perspective
on Personality,
Al
,tl
and Bacon.
I
Cohen,
A.D. (1990). Language' Learning:
searchers. New York: Newburry House.
Insights
for
learners, teachers and ,"1
I
48
I
l
I Jilid 3, Bil. 2/2003
1Jafraoo Jngget
ii
Eric (2000). Survey Of Elementary Students Learning Style Preference And
Academic Success. Contemporary Education. Vol. 71. Issue 4. 42-49.
idson, G.V. (1990). Matching Learning Style With Teaching Style. Is it a useful Con-
cept in lnstruction? Performance And Instruction.
29.
36-38.
Bello, T.C. (1990). Comparison Of Eleven Major Learning Style Models: Variable,
Appropriate Populations, Validity Of Instrumentation and Research Behind Them.
International Journal Of Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities.
6.
203-
222.
W & Rutherford,B (1984). Classroom Research On Matching Learning And
Teaching Style. Theory Into Practice,
23, 20-25.
R.S., Dunn, K.J., and Price, G.E. (1975). The Learning Style Inventory.
Boston:McBer.
C.D. (1972). Personality factors and Scholastic Attainment. British Journal Of
Educational P sychology.4 2. 23 -32.
Rod. (1985). Understanding Second language Acquisition. Oxford University
Press.
.
(1979). Personality Theories
.
An Introducfion. Boston : Houghton
Mifflin Co.
N.J. (1972). Personality and Academic Attainment. British Journal Of Educational Pcychology.42. 137-151.
H.J. (1990). Personality and School Achievement. Education Today.4|.316,
x, W.D (1962). The Pcychologist And The University. University Quart.l7.
33-47.
J. & Baltimore,M. (1996). Gender Related Learning Style Patterns Of Middle
School Pupils. School Psychologt International. 17 (1). 59-70.
D.A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory. Boston,
MA:
Mcber.
b, David. A (1984). Experiential Learning : Experience As The Sources Of Learning And Developmenf. New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.
Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language Learning Strategies: An Overview forL2teachers.
The Internet TESL Journal (on-line serial), l2(3), December 1997. Available at:
wwwaitech.ac. i p/-iteslj/Articles/Lessard-C louston-StrateKv.html.
49
SJaAaoaXnggotia
DP.
Jilid
3,
Milgram, R.M, Dunn, R. & Price, G.E. (1993). Teaching And Counseling Gifted
Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective.
CT : Praeger.
O'Malley, Michael J. and Chamot, Anna Uhl, (1990). Learning Strategies in
Language Acquis ition, Cambridge University Press.
Orsak, L: (1990), Learning Style versus The Rip Van Winkle Syndrome. Educat
Leadership, 48(2), 19-20.
Ricca, J. (1993). Curricular Implications Of Learning Style differences between
and non-gifted students. (Doctoral Dissertation, State University Of New York
Buffalo) Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1324A.
Sim Seng Wan (2000). Learning Styles and language Learning Strategies of form
students. Unpublished Masters Degree, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
& Holliday, P. (1986). Learning Style And Academic Achievement in F,
Fifth and Sixth grade Students. San Francisco.
Smith,D
Wassono F.R. (1980). A.Comparative Analysis
Of Learning Styles And Personality
acteristics Of achieving and underachieving gifted elementary students (Doctoral
sertation, Florida State University). Dissertation Abstract International, 4l.3993
A.
(1991). Learner Strategy for learner autonomy: Planning and
menting learner training for language learners. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden,
50