INTRODUCTION

This section provides pertinent information for the readers to understand the
background, key ideas and concepts contained in the problem statement. It further confers
favorable statements on why the particular variables or treatments of interest in this study
have been chosen over competing alternatives.

Background of the Study


Every language teacher has to make professional decisions to ensure effective
language learning. Several key concepts that have an influence on effective language
learning include learner-centeredness, learning-centeredness and communicative
language teaching (Nunan and Lamb, 1996).
Learner-centeredness means active involvement of learners in their learning
processes. Learning-centeredness means that the learners are able to decide what and how
to learn. Communicative language teaching involves real communication carrying out
meaningful tasks and teaching meaningful language to the learner.
However, teachers decisions made during language instruction depend on various
factors. Among these are the goals of a language course and the needs of the individual
learner as well as the learner methodological preferences to the importance of various
language skills (Kavaliauskiene, 2003).
Of these considerations mentioned, this study focuses on the learner needs and
methodological preferences, substantially to provide a more detailed description of every


2
language learners learning style preferences so he/she will build a better adaptability to
language learning.
In a very interesting study on students language learning preference conducted
by Bada and Zuhal (2000), students resistance on the introduction of instructional
activity in the classroom by ESL teachers was aptly viewed. Some students want more
opportunities to participate in free conversation, expressing their wish towards more
communicatively oriented approach while others would prefer more emphasis on
grammar teaching.
The researcher believes that the teachers, in making decisions regarding the type
of activities to conduct in a language classroom, should take into account such learner
diversities. In this respect, Hall and Hewings (2001) state:
A teacher must assume that learners are capable of arriving at a
particular objective through diverse routes. He needs to recognize learning as
an interpersonal undertaking over which no single person can have full
control, and that there will be differences between ongoing learning
processes. He has to accept that different learners learn different things in
different ways at different times.

If language teachers truly acknowledge that considering the subjective
preferences felt by learner is crucial for effective language learning, then some kind of
negotiation is needed between the participants, in this case, teachers and students.
Information has to be exchanged about roles and expectations, teachers and learners
awareness of each others needs and resources have to be raised and compromise has to
be reached between what learners expect and want and what the teacher feels he can and
ought to provide.
Although many teachers recognize the need to understand the way in which
learners differ in terms of needs and preferences, they may not consult learners in


3
conducting language activities. The basis of such reluctance may be that learners are not
generally regarded capable of expressing what they want or need to learn and how they
want to learn it. Besides, it is argued by many teachers, quite rightly that in some
societies, social roles of teachers and learners are so rigidly drawn that expecting learners
to participate in decision making in the classroom may not be viewed as appropriate
(Bada and Zuhal, 2000).
With these conjectures, this study concurs that consultation-negotiation approach
will inevitably involve a change in the power structure in the classroom. Such a process
of change requires sharing of information about each others perception of classroom
aims and events and a compromise on actual needs and preferences. Moreover, giving
due attention to both learner skills and learner assumptions prove effective on language
learning and teaching.
While promoting this idea, students are provided with the opportunity to clarify
and assess their language learning style preferences in reference to definition of
objectives in general awareness of strategies in learning, hoping that such information
can help English language teachers to be more effective in their career.
Moved with the conviction that language learning style preferences is of vital
importance in the language development of the language learners, this study addresses
the validity and significance of the students language learning style preferences in
precisely influencing their language performance in English.





4
Statement of the Problem

Based on the fact that the subjective preferences felt by the learner is crucial for
effective language learning, this study specifically sought to answer the following
questions:
1. What styles do students most likely prefer in language learning in terms of:
a.) working styles
b.) ways of learning
c.) vocabulary learning
d.) error correction
e.) media preference
f.) learning activities
g.) assessment of language performance
2. How aware are the teachers of the students language learning style
preferences?
3. What is the level of students speaking ability in terms of:
a.) task completion
b.) comprehensibility
c.) fluency
d.) pronunciation
e.) vocabulary
f.) language control




5
4. What is the level of students writing ability in terms of:
a.) task completion
b.) comprehensibility
c.) level of discourse
d.) vocabulary
e.) language control
f.) mechanics
5. Is there a significant relationship between the students language learning
style preferences and their level of language performance in English?
6. What language learning style preferences significantly influence the level of
students language performance?

Objectives of the Study


The study sought to define students preferred language learning styles and
draw relationship to their level of language performance. Specifically, it aimed to:
1. Identify styles which students most likely prefer in language learning in terms of:
a.) working styles
b.) ways of learning
c.) vocabulary learning
d.) error correction
e.) media preference
f.) learning activities
g.) assessment of language performance


6
2. Find out the teachers awareness of students language learning style
preferences;
3. Ascertain the level of students speaking ability in terms of:
a.) task completion
b.) comprehensibility
c.) fluency
d.) pronunciation
e.) vocabulary
f.) language control
4. Ascertain the level of students writing ability in terms of:
a.) task completion
b.) comprehensibility
c.) level of discourse
d.) vocabulary
e.) language control
f.) mechanics
5. Establish a significant relationship between the students language learning
style preferences and their level of language performance in English; and
6. Determine the language learning style preferences that significantly influence
the level of students language performance.








7
Significance of the Study


Accommodating learners needs and preferences is of vital value in designing a
learner-centered language curriculum. Thus, this study carries a potential significance
where its findings in the field of education are set forth to the:
Curriculum Planner. The result of the investigation offers curriculum planners
analytic and holistic views on how language learning style preferences of students
significantly affect L
2
s speaking and writing abilities hence, bringing it into
consideration on curriculum planning and designing.
Syllabus Planner and Material Designer. Information gleaned from this study
empowers material designers and syllabus planners to devise a language learning syllabus
that is in line not with their own perceptions and experiences, but with what most likely
meets the students approval.
Second Language Teachers. By considering learners language learning style
preferences, language teachers can equip themselves with strategic skills to take active
roles in planning and executing language learning activities both during formal
instruction program and in further language teaching endeavors.
Second Language Learners. Having achieved the desired learning experiences,
consequently, this study facilitates LL
2
to fulfill their mental, emotional and social
potentials for better language-learning performance.
Furthermore, this study defines several dimensions of language learning style
preferences which are particularly relevant to foreign and second language education.
Additionally, it draws feedbacks as to which language learning style preferences suit the


8
learners interest in language learning and suggests steps on how to deal with the
educational needs of all students in English language classes.

Scope and Delimitations


This study was an attempt to explore the influence of language learning style
preferences and their significant connection to the speaking and writing abilities of the
LL
2
.

However, such study defined its parameter of investigation in the following
particulars:
Language learning style preferences were the independent variables and the
speaking and writing abilities were the dependent variables.
Performance-based assessments were solely utilized in monitoring students
progress in speaking and writing competencies. Topic monologue such as picture and
card cues were conducted to quantify the level of students speaking ability. Anecdotal
records on students writing samples were documented in determining the level of
students writing ability and progress in writing literacy.
The result of investigation was made true to ninety and seven (97) Senior High
students of San Agustin Institute of Technology, first grading period of school year 2009-
2010, English class.







9
Definition of Terms


The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of
these terms throughout the study. The researcher developed all definitions not
accompanied by a citation.
Comprehensibility denotes the domain which measures the degree to which the
sympathetic reader needs to interpret the students response.
Error correction is the so-called communicative approach downplayed by the
language teachers or peers to treat ones deficiency/mistake in language learning.
First language (L
1
) is the language that the speaker speaks best.
Fluency is the domain which measures the ease with which the speaker delivers a
message.
Foreign language is a language not spoken by the people of a certain place.
Language control measures the use and accuracy of basic language structures.
Language learning style preference refers to the language learning activities that
are considered more desirable in the course of the second language learning.
Language performance denotes to the manner in which the LL
2
operates, behaves
while accomplishing the language learning tasks utilized by the language teacher in the
classroom.
Learning activities are the variants of strategies which the language teachers
manipulated in the classroom to facilitate language learning.
Level of discourse gauges the degree of linguistic sophistication used to
communicate ideas (not what is said but how it is said).


10
Mechanics refers the domain which measures the accuracy of spelling,
punctuation and capitalization and the proper use of diacritical marks.
Pronunciation conveys effectiveness of the communication of the message.
Second language (L
2
) refers to the language which the speaker speaks less well
than his first language.
Second language acquisition (SLA) literally refers to learning a language after
having acquired a first language.
Second language learner (LL
2
) is somebody who studies or learns English as a
Second Language formally in school.
Second language teacher is somebody who is professionally trained to teach
English as a Second Language.
Speaking ability indicates how well the students communicate in spoken medium
by any means such as reporting, explaining, and describing information or procedures.
Task completion refers to the domain which measures how thoroughly the
students complete the required task.
Teaching practice refers to the approaches, methodologies, and strategies
employed by the language teachers in the language teaching learning process. It could be
an action or pattern of behavior exhibited by the teacher in the classroom situation.
Vocabulary is meant to be the accuracy, variety and quantity of vocabulary in the
students response.
Vocabulary learning refers to the acquisition of new set of words in a target
language using various mechanisms.


11
Ways of learning is the learners means to learn best the target language based on
ones general disposition.
Working style refers to the manner where language learners perform or do a
particular task in language learning.
Writing ability indicates how well students communicate in the written medium.



































12
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK



This chapter expounds considerable literature reviews explored on language
learning styles and preferences in foreign countries whose second language is English.
Through the years, linguists and educators race to unravel the influence of language
learning styles on language performance purposely among the second language learners.
These thorough examinations from previously completed researches and authoritative
opinion gave this paper a way to make decisions in framing theoretical constructs
relevant to the study.
Major international researches were incorporated in this chapter specifically on:
Learning and Teaching Style in Foreign and Second Language Education, Learning
Language and Learning Styles, Setting Goals and Objectives, Language and Learning
Styles and Strategies, Effective Teaching Practices for English Language Learners,
Language Learning Strategies, Phenomenon on Speaking Ability and ESL Childrens
Writing Development.

Review of Related Studies and Literature


An Overview on Language Learning Style


Learning style was first viewed as a consistent way of functioning which reflects
cultural behavior patterns and like other behaviors influenced by cultural experiences,
may be revised as a result of training or changes in learning experiences. Learning styles
are thus moderately strong habits rather than intractable biological attributes (Reid,


13
1987). With a moderate training, sub/unconscious styles can become conscious learning
strategies.
During the past decade, educational research has identified a number of factors
that account for some of the differences on how students learn. One of these factors,
learning styles, is broadly described as cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that
are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the
learning environment (Reid, 1987).

Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second Language Education


Learning styles have been extensively discussed in the educational psychology
literature and over 30 learning style assessment instruments have been developed in the
past three decades. Serious mismatches may occur between the learning styles of students
in a class and the teaching style of the instructor with unfortunate potential consequences.
The students tend to be bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, get discouraged
about the course, and may conclude that they are no good at the subject of the course and
give up. Instructors, confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor
attendance, and dropouts, may become overly critical of their students (making things
even worse) or begin to question their own competence as teachers (Felder and
Silverman, 1995).

Dimensions of Learning Style


In the sections that follow, five dichotomous learning style dimensions derived
from the work of Felder et al. (1995), indicate the ways in which the educational needs of


14
students with strong preferences for certain poles of the dimensions are not met by
traditional approaches to language instruction. The concluding section offers a summary
of suggestions for meeting the needs of those students.
The proposed learning style dimensions may be defined in terms of the answers to
the following: 1.) What type of information does the student preferentially perceive:
sensory sights, sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive memories, ideas, and
insights?; 2.) Through which modality is sensory information most effectively perceived:
visual pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or verbal written and spoken words
and formulas?; 3.) How does the student prefer to process information: actively through
engagement in physical activity or discussion, or reflectively through introspection?; 4.)
How does the student progress toward understanding: sequentially in a logical
progression of small incremental steps, or globally in large jumps, holistically? and 5.)
With which organization of information is the student most comfortable: inductive facts
and observations are given, underlying principles are inferred or deductive principles
are given, consequences and applications are deduced?

Sensing and Intuitive Learners


In his theory of psychological types, Carl Jung in Felder (1995) introduced
sensation and intuition as the two ways in which people tend to perceive the world.
Sensing involves observing, gathering data through the senses; intuition involves indirect
perception by way of the subconscious accessing memory, speculating, imagining.
Everyone uses both faculties constantly, but most people tend to favor one over the other.


15
The strength of this preference has been assessed for millions of people using the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCaulley, 1995) and the different
ways in which sensors and intuitors approach learning have been characterized
(Lawrence, 1993). Sensor intuitor differences in language learning have been explored
by Moody (1998) and Ehrman and Oxford (2000).
Sensors tend to be concrete and methodical, intuitors to be abstract and
imaginative. Sensors like facts, data, and experimentation; intuitors deal better with
principles, concepts, and theories. Sensors are patient with detail but do not like
complications; intuitors are bored by detail and welcome complications. Sensors are more
inclined to rely on memorization as a learning strategy and are more comfortable learning
and following rules and standard procedures than intuitors.
Intuitors like variety, dislike repetition, and tend to be better equipped than
sensors to accommodate new concepts and exceptions to rules. Sensors are careful but
may be slow; intuitors are quick but may be careless. Moody (1998) administered the
MBTI to 491 college language students at the first and second year levels. Fifty-nine
percent of the students were intuitors, substantially more than the 40 percent found for a
sample of 18,592 general college students (Myers and McCaulley, 1995). This pattern is
not altogether surprising if one presumes that a substantial number of the students were
either majoring in a language or taking the courses as electives.
As Moody notes, language is by its nature symbolic, which would tend to make it
more attractive to intuitors than to the more concrete and literal minded sensors. Ehrman
and Oxford (2000) studied learning strategies and teaching approaches preferred by
sensors and intuitors in an intensive language training program. The sensors used a


16
variety of memorization strategies like internal drills and flash cards, liked class material
that might better be described as practical than fanciful, and liked highly structured and
well organized classes with clear goals and milestones for achievement.
Intuitors preferred teaching approaches that involve greater complexity and
variety, tended to be bored with drills, and were better able than sensors to learn
independently of the instructors teaching style. Basic language instruction that involves a
great deal of repetitive drill and memorization of vocabulary and grammar (the sort of
teaching style often found in pre-college and community college classes) is better suited
to sensors than intuitors. If there is too much of this sort of thing without a break, the
intuitors who constitute the majority of the class, if Moodys results are representative
may become bored with the subject and their course performance may consequently
deteriorate.
On the other hand, strongly intuitive language instructors may tend to move too
quickly through the basic vocabulary and rules of grammar in their eagerness to get to
the more interesting material grammatical complexities, nuances of translation,
linguistic concepts, and cultural considerations. While the intuitive students may enjoy
these topics, overemphasizing such material may result in insufficient grounding in the
building blocks of the language. The sensors, in particular, may then start to fall behind
and do poorly on homework and tests. Effective instruction reaches out to all students,
not just those with one particular learning style. Students taught entirely with methods
antithetical to their learning style may be made too uncomfortable to learn effectively, but
they should have at least some exposure to those methods to develop a full range of
learning skills and strategies (Smith and Renzulli, 2004).


17
To be effective, language instruction should therefore contain elements that
appeal to sensors and other elements that appeal to intuitors. The material presented in
every class should be a blend of concrete information (word definitions, grammatical
rules) and concepts (syntactical and semantic information, linguistic and cultural
background information), with the percentage of each being chosen to fit the level of the
course (beginning, intermediate, or advanced) and the age and level of sophistication of
the students.

Visual and Verbal Learners


Felder et al. (1995) proposed to classify the ways people receive sensory
information as visual, verbal, and others (tactile, gustatory, olfactory). Visual learners
prefer that information be presented visually in pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time
lines, films, and demonstrations rather than in spoken or written words. Verbal learners
prefer spoken or written explanations to visual presentations. The third category (touch,
taste, smell) plays at most a marginal role in language instruction.
Since the five human senses are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling,
Felder et al. (1995) further suggested that kinesthetic does not properly belong to a list
of sensory input modalities. A students preference for motion or physical activity of
some sort during the learning process belongs to a separate learning style category:
Felders (1995) proposed system and Kolbs (1994) model place it in the active/reflective
dimension, and the familiar model based on Jungs typology (Lawrence, 1993) includes it
in the extravert-introvert dimension.


18
The distinction between the visual-auditory and visual-verbal classifications has
to do with whether reading prose is more closely related to seeing pictures (which leads
to the visual-auditory contrast) or to hearing speech (visual-verbal).
An extensive body of research supports a form of the dual encoding hypothesis.
Direct access is possible when words are familiar or when artificial conditions imposed in
a research setting make speech encoding inefficient; however, when material is
unfamiliar or difficult, lexical memory is speech accessed (Crowder and Wagner, 1992).
The implication is that expository prose of the sort one finds in books and on classroom
chalkboards is much more likely to be speech-mediated than directly accessed when
silently read, and so belongs in the verbal rather than the visual category. Most people
extract and retain more information from visual presentations than from written or spoken
prose (Dale, 1999), while most language instruction is verbal, involving predominantly
lectures, writing in texts and on chalkboards, and audiotapes in language laboratories.
Given the preference of most students for visual input, one would expect the last
of these modes of presentation in particular to be unpopular, an expectation borne out in
research cited by Moody (1998). When community college students were asked to rank-
order 13 instructional modes, including lectures, discussion, slides, field trips, and
audiotapes, audiotapes ranked at or near the bottom for the overwhelming majority of
students surveyed.
Recent studies of learning styles in foreign language education (e.g., Oxford and
Ehrman, 1993) consistently place reading in the visual category, implying that instructors
can meet the needs of visual learners solely by relying on written instructional material.
Certainly visual learners learn better if they see and hear words in the target language, but


19
so do auditory learners: presenting the same material in different ways invariably has a
reinforcing effect on retention.
The challenge to language instructors is to devise ways of augmenting their verbal
classroom presentation with nonverbal visual material for example, showing
photographs, drawings, sketches, and cartoons to reinforce presentation of vocabulary
words, and using films, videotapes, and dramatizations to illustrate lessons in dialogue
and pronunciation.

Active and Reflective Learners


The complex mental processes by which perceived information is converted into
knowledge can be conveniently grouped into two categories: active experimentation and
reflective observation (Kolb, 1994).
Active processing involves doing something in the external world with the
information discussing it or explaining it or testing it in some way and reflective
processing involves examining and manipulating the information introspectively. An
active learner is someone with more of a natural tendency toward active experimentation
than toward reflective observation, and conversely for a reflective learner. Active learners
learn well in situations that enable them to do something physical and reflective learners
learn well in situations that provide them with opportunities to think about the
information being presented. The more opportunities students have to both participate
and reflect in class, the better they will learn new material and the longer they are likely
to retain it (Kolb, 1984) in Reid (1995). Language classes in which all students are


20
relegated to passive roles, listening to and observing the instructor and taking notes, do
little to promote learning for either active or reflective learners.
Language classes should, therefore, include a variety of active learning
experiences, such as conversations, enactment of dialogues and mini dramas, and team
competitions, and reflective experiences, such as brief writing exercises and question
formulation exercises. Small group exercises can be extremely effective for both active
and reflective learners (Johnson et al., 1991).
Most references on cooperative learning (Johnson et al., 1991) point out that
students often respond negatively to group work at first, and that the benefits of the
approach are fully realized when the group work is structured to assure such features as
positive interdependence, individual accountability, and appropriate uses of teamwork
and interpersonal skills. Reid (1995) studied students from a variety of ethnic
backgrounds and found that every background expressed a minor or negative preference
for group work, with English speakers giving it the lowest rating. When language
students have been taught cooperative skills, however, they showed positive results in
both language skill and altruism (Gunderson and Johnson, 1990).

Sequential and Global Learners


Sequential learners absorb information and acquire understanding of material in
small connected chunks, and global learners take in information in seemingly
unconnected fragments and achieve understanding in large holistic leaps. Before global
learners can master the details of a subject they need to understand how the material


21
being presented relates to their prior knowledge and experience, a perspective that
relatively few instructors routinely provide.
Consequently, global learners may appear slow and do poorly on homework and
tests until they grasp the total picture, but once they have it they can often see
connections that escape sequential learners. On the other hand, sequential learners can
function with incomplete understanding of course material, but they may lack a grasp of
the broad context of a body of knowledge and its interrelationships with other subjects
and disciplines.
Schmeck (1998) believes that the analytic/global dimension encompasses all other
cognitive styles, a belief shared by Oxford et al. (1991). Oxford (2000) proposed that this
learning style dimension could be tapped through studies of brain hemisphericity. She
cited studies of Leaver (1996) suggesting that left-brain (sequential) thinkers deal more
easily with grammatical structure and contrastive analysis, while right-brain (global)
thinkers are better at learning language intonation and rhythms. Sequential learners
gravitate toward strategies that involve dissecting words and sentences into component
parts and are comfortable with structured teaching approaches that stress grammatical
analysis; global learners prefer holistic strategies such as guessing at words and searching
for main ideas, and may respond well to relatively unstructured approaches like
community language learning that might not appeal to sequential learners.










22
Inductive and Deductive Learners


Induction is a reasoning progression that proceeds from particulars (observations,
measurements, and data) to generalities (rules, laws, theories). Deduction proceeds in the
opposite direction.
In inductive presentation of classroom material, one makes observations and
infers governing or correlating principles; in deductive presentation one starts with
axioms, principles, or rules, deduces consequences, and formulates applications.
As with the previous dimensions, students may have moderate or strong
preferences for one or the other presentation mode; in particular, they may prefer
deductive presentation because of its relatively high level of structure. A large percentage
of classroom teaching in every subject is primarily or exclusively deductive, probably
because deduction is an efficient and elegant way to organize and present material that is
already understood.
Insofar as foreign languages are concerned, Felder et al. (1995) proposed that the
distinction between induction and deduction has to be akin to the distinction between
language acquisition and learning. To acquire a language means to pick it up gradually,
gaining the ability to communicate with it without necessarily being able to articulate the
rules. Individuals absorb what they can from the abundant and continuous input that
bombards them; they cannot grasp all they hear, but each day increases their ability to
understand, retain, and use in conversation what they have taken in. Throughout the
process they gain in their ability to transfer strategies, make assumptions about the new
language system, formulate and test rules, and either keep or abandon them. They
continue this process (most of which is subconscious) until they fossilize, which they


23
may do as soon as they feel they have learned what they need to in order to communicate
in the language. In its progression from specifics to generalizations, acquisition is an
inductive process.
On the other hand, language learning is a largely conscious process that involves
formal exposure to rules of syntax and semantics followed by specific applications of the
rules, with corrective feedback reinforcing correct usage and discouraging incorrect
usage. The flow of the learning process from general to specific suggests its
characterization as a deductive process.

Categorization of Learning Styles


Reid (1995) divides learning styles into three major categories: cognitive learning
styles, sensory learning styles, and personality learning styles. Cognitive learning styles
Field-independent vs. Field-dependent: Field-independent learners learn more effectively
step by step, beginning with analyzing facts and proceeding to ideas. Field-dependent
learners, in contrast, prefer to learn in context and holistically. Analytic vs. Global:
Analytic learners learn individually, and prefer setting goals. Global learners, on the other
hand, learn more effectively through concrete experience, and by interaction with other
people. Reflective vs. Impulsive: Reflective learners learn more effectively when they
have time to consider options before responding. This is while, impulsive learners are
able to respond immediately and take risks.
Sensory learning styles Perceptual learning styles Auditory learner: learns more
effectively through the ear (hearing) Visual learner: learns more effectively through the
eyes (seeing) Tactile learner: learns more effectively through touch (hands-on)


24
Kinesthetic learner: learns more effectively through body experience (movement) Haptic
learner: learns more effectively through touch and body involvement
Environmental learning styles Physical vs. Sociological: Physical learners learn
more effectively when variables such as temperature, sound, light, food, time, and
classroom arrangement are considered. Sociological learners, in contrast, learn more
effectively when variables such as group, individual, pair, and team work, and level of
teacher authority are regarded.
Personality learning styles Extroversion vs. Introversion: Extroverted learners are
interested in concrete experience, contact with outside, and relationship with others.
Introverted learners, on the other hand, are more interested in individual, independent
situations. Sensing vs. Perception: Sensing learners learn best from reports of observable
facts and happenings, and rely on their five senses. This is while, perception learners
learn more effectively from meaningful experiences and relationships with others.
Thinking vs. Feeling: Thinking learners learn best from impersonal circumstances and
logical consequences.
On the other hand, feeling learners prefer personalized circumstances and social
values. Judging vs. Perceiving: Judging learners learn by reflection, analysis, and
processes that involve closure. Perceiving learners, in contrast, learn through negotiation,
feeling, and inductive processed that postpone closure. Ambiguity-tolerant vs.
Ambiguity-intolerant: Ambiguity-tolerant learners learn best when opportunities for
experience and risk, as well as interaction, are present. Ambiguity-intolerant learners,
however, learn most effectively when in less flexible, less risky, and more structured
situations. Left-brained vs. Right-brained: Left-brained learners tend toward visual,


25
analytic, reflective, self-reliant learning. Right-brained learners, on the contrary, are more
interested in auditory, global, impulsive, interactive learning.

Learners Learning Preferences


Over the past three decades researchers have started to work on the learning
preferences. Research that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles relies
primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred
learning styles. Reid (1987), for example, based on the findings of a survey, distinguished
four perceptual learning modalities: 1) Visual learning (for example, reading and
studying charts) 2) Auditory learning (for example, listening to lectures or audiotapes) 3)
Kinesthetic learning (involving physical responses) 4) Tactile learning (hands-on
learning, as in building models).
Results of Reids study showed that ESL students strongly preferred kinesthetic
and tactile learning styles. Most groups showed a negative preference for group learning.
Reid came to the conclusion that the learning style preferences of nonnative speakers
often differ significantly from those of native speakers; that ESL students from different
language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their learning style
preferences; and that variables such as sex, length of time in the United States, length of
time studying English in the U. S., field of study, level of education, TOEFL score, and
age are related to differences in learning styles.
Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Marilyn (2003) tried to explore the learning style
preferences of three different populations (Russian EFL students, Russian ESL students,
and Asian ESL students). Findings revealed that these three groups of language learners


26
clearly preferred group activity above individual work, with the Russian EFL and Asian
ESL students favoring group work and project work. The researchers further suggested
that at least some cultural influences were at play. Both quantitative and qualitative
studies in cross-cultural settings support a relationship between culture and learning and
contend that culture, ethnicity, class, and gender play important roles in shaping the
learning preferences and learning styles of students.
In an attempt to investigate the issue of learners preferences of the methodology
of learning a foreign language, Kavaliauskiene (2003) drew three main conclusions from
this research. First, slightly more than half of the learners favor a communicative
approach to perfecting their language skills by working in pairs/small groups, taking part
in projects and practicing English by talking to their peers. Second, given assignments 93
percent of learners support the idea of homework against 7 percent who reject it. Third, a
short-term approach to studying a foreign language prevails. Learners seek passing their
exams and getting good marks, and are not concerned with improving language skills and
competence for the future usage.

Learning Language and Learning Style


A noteworthy insight reflected by Banner and Rayner (2001) which pinpoints the
arguable two self-evident truths about effective teaching and learning in the classroom.
The first is that an individual students approach to learning is central to educational
achievement. The second is that a teachers awareness and response to this approach is
equally crucial for success in the classroom.


27
Although knowing more about how individual students learn, as a process and in
practice, has always been an important question for second language teachers learning a
second language may not generally be associated with a direct focus upon the process of
learning. They further argued that making such a link between teaching a second
language and students personal approaches to learning leads to a better understanding of
how students may effectively learn a second language. This, in turn, can lead to new and
successful approaches to teaching and learning in the second language classroom. The
aim of this paper is to raise an awareness among second language teachers of such style
differences in learning and to demonstrate how such knowledge can enable successful
teaching and learning of second language learners.
The desire and the need to develop new ways of enhancing teaching and learning
are shared by every teacher planning the next scheme of work, facing the school day or
simply preparing a lesson. This fact alone represents good reason for finding time to
consider the development of style-led teaching and learning in the classroom.
Rayner and Riding (1997) suggested that a first step should be an awareness-
raising program which enables teachers and students to test the assertion that style
differences can make a positive difference in the classroom. It is important, however, in
the real world of the classroom that teachers see some early return for the time spent
considering the place of style in the process of teaching and learning. Teachers, who are
pressured by ever increasing demands, understandably need to see some advantages to
including a style-led dimension in their teaching and learning.
Learning language and learning style are surely inseparable as part of a more
general process of learning a communicative methodology. Brumfit (1995) states: real


28
advances in the levels of linguistic competence achievable by pupils, however, will only
come about from a better understanding of the processes involved in language use and
choice.
The teachers role is one of professional communicator planning a structured
program for developing communication skills in students not only in the second language
but also in the mother tongue. As part of this role, style quite naturally plays its part in the
process of teaching and learning. Awareness should be appropriately used to organize an
inclusive approach to education, which enables diversity and differentiation within the
second language lesson. The same approach should be used in curriculum planning and
the design of learning activity. The concept of style differences in learning offers a
structure for learning how to learn and teaching learners how to learn more
effectively. This, in turn, provides a basis for a richer application of communicative
methodology in second language lessons. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, teaching
in style can facilitate achievement across the ability range in the second language
classroom.

Setting Goals and Objectives


In the book of Hall and Hewings (2001), Nunan and Lamb (1995) clearly stated
Brindleys (1984) basis for setting goals and objectives in the content domain. It contends
that goals and objective setting are most important tasks in most educational contexts
because they provide rationale in selecting a pedagogical task, as well as providing a
point of reference for decision-making process.


29
In this particular notion, Brindley (1984) underscores the types of information
required in a learner-centered system: 1.) learners life goals so teachers have the basis
on which to determine or predict learners language goals, communicative networks and
social roles; 2.) language goals, communicative networks and social roles so learners
may be placed in a group based on common social roles, and teachers may make
preliminary decision about course content appropriate to learners social roles; 3.)
objective needs, patterns of language use and personal resources so teachers can be
grouped according to their needs and/or interest; 4.) language proficiency and language
difficulties so learners can be grouped according to their proficiency; 5.) subjective
needs including learner strategy preferences, affective needs learning activity
preferences, pace of learning and attitude toward correction so that teachers may adapt
learning activities to learning strategy preferences and individual needs; 6.) information
about learners attainment of objectives so that teachers can monitor performance and
modify program accordingly and 7.) information about developmental processes in
second language learning including learners communicative strategies so that teachers
can gear language content and material to learners stage of development.

Comparing Students and Teachers Opinions


Various studies have shown that there can be considerable discrepancies of
opinion between learners and their teachers or syllabus experts. A divergence of opinion
between these two groups has been noted in relation to what learners need, what they
prefer, and the nature of language and language learning (Brindley, 1984) in Riazi
(2007).


30
The teachers in Barkhuisens (1998) survey were frequently surprised to learn
about the thoughts and feelings of their students. In other words, the students perceptions
did not match those of teachers. Spratts (1999) study, too, showed a considerable lack of
correspondence between the learners preferences and teachers perceptions of them. It
was seen that teachers perceptions of learners preferences corresponded in
approximately 50% of cases with learners actual preferences. It was also found that there
is no obvious pattern to the correspondences or lack of them. This means that it is hard to
discern reasons for why they occurred and hard too to predict where they might occur.
Finally, Stapa (2003) concluded that students preferences do indeed correlate
with those of teachers in many instances. The findings of his study reveal significant
results suggesting a need for a closer cooperation between students and teachers as to
how learning activities should be arranged and implemented in the classroom.

Language Learning Styles and Strategies


One of the advantages adults have over younger language learners is the ability to
use abstract thinking skills to reflect on their language learning process, and consciously
engage and structure their learning to their best advantage. All theories of second
language acquisition (SLA) aside, there is considerable variation in how individuals learn
a second language (L
2
) (Ellis 2005). Adults have the ability to reflect on their
personalities, personal learning styles, motivations, and assess what strategies are most
effective for their learning.
Motivational factors can be influential in nature and frequency with which L
2
learners make use of language learning strategies (Ellis, 2005). Language learning


31
strategies (LLSs) are the steps or actions learners take to improve the learning or use of a
language (Cohen 1996). Oxford (1999) outlines seven types of LLS: cognitive strategies,
memory strategies to use their indigenous language may be due not only to the pressure
of an English-speaking society, but also to unreasonable expectations of correctness and
accuracy.
According to Hinton (2001) in Oxford (2003), criticism discourages participation
and learning, frequently the criticism may cause them to give up on speaking the
language altogether. Motivational factors can be influential in nature and frequency with
which L
2
learners make use of language learning strategies (Ellis, 2005). Language
learning strategies (LLSs) are the steps or actions learners take to improve the learning or
use of a language (Cohen, 1996). Oxford (2003) outlines seven types of LLS: cognitive
strategies, memory strategies, comprehension strategies, communication strategies,
metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies.
Ellis (2005) compresses those types of LLSs and describes three categories of
language learning strategies: cognitive strategies, those involved in the analysis, synthesis
or transformation of learning materials; metacognitive strategies, those involved in
planning, monitoring and evaluating learning; and social/affective strategies, those
involved in the ways learners interact with other speakers.
Much of the research around LLSs has focused on the role that these strategies
play in L
2
acquisition, and many studies have focused on identifying the strategies used
by successful language learners.
Successful second language learners, according to Ellis (2005), are active in using
strategies, show an awareness of the learning process and of their own learning style. An


32
increase in use of strategies was found to be correlated to improvement on language tasks
(Cohen 1995), and successful learners use more strategies than unsuccessful learners
(Ellis, 2005).
Learning strategies are directly tied to a learners underlying learning style their
general approach to learning and personality variables (Cohen, 1996). Oxford (2003)
explores several aspects of learning styles including: sensory preferences, personality
types, desired degree of generality and biological factors, all of which occur on a
continuum or multiple, intersecting continua.
It is important, therefore to match the use of language learning strategies to the
learners language learning style. Learners resisted learning and using strategies that were
completely opposed to their learning preferences (Oxford and Crookall, 1993).
Because many learners are unaware of the strategies they use, and therefore do
not take full advantage of the available strategies (Oxford and Crookall 1993), it is
advisable to teach learning strategies directly to adults who are striving to learn a second
language. Strategy-based instruction refers to the explicit instruction of learners in how
identify and use strategies for language learning (Cohen, 1996). According to Oxford
(2003) The most effective strategy instruction appears to include demonstrating when a
given strategy might be useful, as well as how to use and evaluate it, and how to transfer
it to other related tasks and situations. Sometimes these methods are called learning-to-
learn. Research suggests that training students to use LLS can help them become better
learners, and acquire material more quickly (Lessard-Clouston, 1997).
Clearly, there is a need for consideration of language learning strategies and
learner styles among language teachers, curriculum developers and learners themselves.


33
Language learning strategy training can take the form of a separate course or instruction
that focuses on the language learning process itself, or the training can be integrated into
the actual language environment where the skills are taught in tandem with the language.
The key for instructors and curricular material developers in attempting to address
a group of learners with varied styles and LLS, is to provide a greater variety of activities
that cater to different learning styles (Oxford 2003).

Effective Teaching Practices for English Language Learners


English language learners (ELLs), students whose first language is not English
have risen dramatically in numbers in recent decades. Many live in poverty and attend
underfunded schools staffed by underqualified teachers. These students face low
achievement and high dropout rates. Hampering efforts to improve their education have
been shortages of qualified teachers, teachers low expectations for ELLs, and
overreliance on direct instructional methods that hinder the development of verbal skills.
Moreover, ELL teaching has often overlooked the culturally specific prior knowledge of
ELLs. Many educators maintain that the best way to help these students is to give them
better classroom instruction that focuses on research-based instructional practices found
effective for ELLs.
Waxman (2004) reviewed the synthesis of research on effective teaching for
ELLs undertaken to identify best teaching practices. The synthesis focused on studies of
teaching practices that account for the diversity of ELLs. The study concentrated on
recent (1990 to the present) research, which coincides with the rapid growth in ELLs in
schools and reflects a shift to qualitative research addressing issues like culture and


34
language. To be included in the synthesis, studies had to involve K12 education, focus
on effective instruction, be rigorously designed, and feature empirical data. Thirty studies
fully met these criteria.

Collaborative Learning Communities


Studies addressing the importance of collaborative learning communities
considered group tasks as crucial for language learning. They maintained that
interactional learning encouraged strong cooperation and discourse that in turn drove
language learning. For instance, Goatley, Brock, and Raphael (1995) found that inviting
ELLs to join native English-speaking book clubs improved ELLs language skills and
allowed them to share their culture. Such research suggests that student interaction
promotes the growth of a community that encourages greater language use. Focusing on
community-building strategies seems to enhance language learning even when all
students in the group lack English proficiency (Joyce, 1997).

Providing Multiple Representations


A second effective instructional strategy relies on providing multiple
representations, for example, linking words to pictures or real objects, to aid learning.
Other uses of multiple representations have become common. For instance, teachers use
graphic organizers to represent visually the relationships among words and concepts in
the second language (Tang, 1992). Astorga (1999) found that pictures illustrating written
narrative facilitated the decoding process for children learning English. And many


35
teachers have discovered that the multiple media of video are highly effective in
promoting language learning.

Building on Prior Knowledge


Several articles in the synthesis focused on building on prior knowledge. Most
notably, Garcia (1991) found prior knowledge important for Latino ELLs taking literacy
tests. Students limited prior content knowledge correlated with poor performance.
Because students used Spanish to understand English reading passages, Garcia suggested
that Spanish literacy be used to improve English reading comprehension. In another
study, Godina (1998) found that teachers who used ELLs prior knowledge of Mexicano
culture were more successful than teachers who did not.

Instructional Conversation


Instructional conversation gives students opportunities for extended, educational
dialogue that encourages relation of school content to students individual, community,
and family knowledge. This strategy focuses on students processes of forming,
expressing, and sharing knowledge. The instruction is not direct but dialogic. Teachers
construct lessons from students experience and ideas, and the classroom becomes a
learning community. Instructional conversation also involves teachers in promoting
connected language and expression, responding to and using students contributions, and
creating a challenging yet nonthreatening atmosphere.






36
Culturally Responsive Instruction


Culturally responsive instruction emphasizes students cultural concerns, The
Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory
including critical family and community issues, and incorporates them into the
curriculum, textbooks, and learning activities. The approach also stresses social and
academic responsibility as well as appreciation of diversity. One study (Darder, 1993)
found that Latino teachers who engaged in such instruction were more likely than
teachers who did not to recognize and address students academic and social needs. This
learner-centered practice works from students existing knowledge base, improves self-
confidence, and increases the transfer of school-taught knowledge to real-life situations.

Cognitively Guided Language Instruction


Cognitively guided language instruction uses direct modeling of strategies to
foster students cognitive monitoring of their own learning. This practice encourages
teachers to emphasize students psychological processing as well as subject matter; it also
shifts the responsibility of learning from teacher to student. Moreover, this perspective
assumes that students differ in the types of strategies they bring to the learning context;
students who use weak strategies need specific attention to cognitive needs. This
approach can benefit the large number of ELLs struggling in school because once they
learn to use effective cognitive strategies, some individual barriers to academic success
may be removed. Further, the approach can benefit ELLs by motivating passive learners
to become more active. Since English-monolingual students have been shown to use


37
twice as many cognitive reading strategies as bilingual students (Padrn, Knight, and
Waxman, 1986), this approach may help remove ELLs reading deficits.

Technology-Enriched Instruction


Classroom technology has been found to benefit ELLs. It is motivational and
nonjudgmental, tailors instruction to students rate of learning, allows for autonomy and
prompt feedback, enriches students linguistic environment, and diminishes teachers
authoritarian role. Writing and reading programs for ELLs develop story-writing ability
and comfort with expressing ideas (Chavez, 1990). Multimedia technology is effective
for ELLs, helping them connect images, sound, and symbols. Multimedia can also
connect classroom learning to authentic learning situations (Means and Olson, 1994).
Digitized books allow ELLs to request pronunciations and translations of unknown words
and ask substantive questions.
Incorporating these instructional practices in schools serving ELLs has proven
beneficial. Instructional conversation and culturally responsive instruction can
contextualize the ELL classroom. In cognitively guided instruction, reciprocal teaching
methods in which teachers read aloud enable ELLs to learn comprehension strategies
before they learn to decode written language. Technology-enriched instruction can
deepen classroom instruction by lessening reliance on direct instructional approaches and
fostering independent thinking. Moreover, the practices should be implemented together.
For example, principles of culturally responsive instruction like respect for diversity can
be taught and applied through collaborative learning communities.


38
Other aspects of collaborative learning communities like debate and compromise
can be developed through aspects of instructional-conversation practice. Further,
students language development can be enhanced by having them collaborate while using
technology. Teacher education needs to include training in technology and nondirective
approaches. It should also include training in cultural and linguistic differences that can
affect expectations of students.
Crucial, too, in teacher training is practice in assessing students background
knowledge and individual needs; greater knowledge of language development and
acquisition can support that practice. And teachers must learn to raise expectations by
challenging ELLs with complex academic tasks. Such teacher education must take place
in both preservice and professional development. Support of professional development in
high-poverty areas with high percentages of ELLs is urgently needed.
Finally, given the challenges our nation faces in serving ELLs, further research is
needed to examine effects of these instructional practices on ELLs cognitive, affective,
and behavioral outcomes. These practices are not new, but they deserve new
consideration in this context because they have not been widely used in teaching ELLs.

Language Learning Strategies for Teachers


In a helpful survey article, Weinstein and Mayer (1996) defined learning
strategies (LS) broadly as behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during
learning which are intended to influence the learners encoding process. Later Mayer
(1998) more specifically defined LS as behaviors of a learner that are intended to
influence how the learner processes information.


39
These early definitions from the educational literature reflect the roots of LS in
cognitive science, with its essential assumptions that human beings process information
and that learning involves such information processing. Clearly, LS are involved in all
learning, regardless of the content and context. LS are thus used in learning and teaching
math, science, history, languages and other subjects, both in classroom settings and more
informal learning environments.
Within L
2
/FL education, a number of definitions of LLS have been used by key
figures in the field. Early on, Tarone (1993) defined LS as an attempt to develop
linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language to incorporate these
into ones interlanguage competence. Rubin (1997) later wrote that LS are strategies
which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs
and affect learning directly.
In their seminal study, OMalley and Chamot (1990) defined LS as the special
thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new
information . Finally, building on work in her book for teachers (Oxford, 1990), Oxford
(1992/1993) provides specific examples of LLS and this helpful definition:
Language learning strategies are specific actions, behaviors, steps, or
techniques that students (often intentionally) use to improve their progress in
developing L
2
skills. These strategies can facilitate the internalization, storage,
retrieval, or use of the new language. Strategies are tools for the self-directed
involvement necessary for developing communicative ability. (Oxford,
1992/1993)

From these definitions, a change over time may be noted: from the early focus on
the product of LSS (linguistic or sociolinguistic competence), there is now a greater
emphasis on the processes and the characteristics of LLS. At the same time, we should


40
note that LLS are distinct from learning styles, which refer more broadly to a learners
natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new
information and skills (Reid, 1995), though there appears to be an obvious relationship
between ones language learning style and his or her usual or preferred language learning
strategies.

Phenomenon on Speaking Ability


Speaking ability is the ability to communicate orally. It is not only to apply the
grammatically correct sentences, but also to know when and where to use these sentences
and to whom. Canale and Swain in Ommaggio (1996) state that the ability of
communication is related to the rules of language use and the rule of grammar.
Furthermore, Savignon (1993) in Ommaggio (1996) states that spoken language is an oral
phenomenon in communicative competence out of written language. Communicative
competence depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who
share some knowledge of language. In this sense, then, communicative competence can
be said to be an interpersonal rather than an intrapersonal trait.
In foreign of target language teaching, the ability to speak is the primary goal of
learning a language. Finocchiaro and Bonomo (1993) explain that the learners must do
simultaneously the points below to reach the aim; to decide what they want to say, to
choose the pattern they are going to use, to select appropriate words, to use the correct
accent, and to say it in appropriate situation.
Speaking seems intuitively the most important of all the four language skills
(listening, speaking, reading, and writing) since people who know a language are referred


41
to as a speaker of that language, as if speaking included all other skills of knowing that
language (Ur, 1996). In other words, a learners end product of language learning is to be
capable of speaking the target language fluently. However, speaking skill is a crucial part
of the language learning process, and it is also the one skill, which has often been
neglected in EFL classroom. In addition, in English proficiency testing, oral performance
appears to be one of the most difficult skills to assess since there are many external and
internal factors that influence a raters impression toward how well someone can speak a
foreign language. In other words, the reliability of scoring has always been doubted as the
oral proficiency test inevitably involves raters personal/ subjective views instead of their
objective points of view.
Based on the fact that many learners who had been taught the English language by
nonnative speakers in the countries that consider English as a foreign language, Kim
(2005) claimed that using the rating criteria based on native speakers standards to
measure learners oral proficiency was not appropriate for the actual use of English in an
international context. Therefore, it is important for educators, test designers, and
researchers to reconsider the purposes of language speaking tests, and the standards of
assessing learners speaking skills, since it cannot be denied that the natural function of
speaking is for a meaningful message delivery rather than the use of language form.

Factors Influencing Speaking Ability


In accordance with the factors that can influence speaking ability of the students,
there are four components of speech should be noted; pronunciation, vocabulary,
grammar, and comprehension.


42
According to Harris (1994) pronunciation includes vowels, consonants, stresses,
and intonation patterns. In speaking, perfect pronunciation of all sounds is not necessary
in order to communicate, but lack of the ability may influence sounds of the words that
are uttered. If the students are having difficulty with any given sound, the teacher should
assist them by describing tongue and lip movements (Chastain, 1995).
In accordance with the components of speaking, Chastain (1995) gives
explanation that vocabulary items are needed to talk. Vocabulary is normally studied in
dialogue or conversation. This way will help the students to be more active in
communication.
Communication in speaking will run smoothly if its grammar can be understood.
In order to be understood, the students should organize the words in the sentences
compactly and efficiently. They should build grammatical sentences in order the listener
can easily catch the meaning carried in their utterances. The next component of speaking
is comprehension. It involves combining all of the speaking skill. It is very complex skill.
To get a message from the conversation, a speaker will do the speaking skill (Chastain,
1995).
In the process of communication, there are some influencing aspects in speaking.
According to Rives and Temporally (2001), there are two aspects involved in speaking:
skill getting and skill using. The first includes the cognition (knowledge) of the language
and its production; the second is the comprehension of a message (reception) and the
conveying personal meaning (expression) in real communication. Furthermore, Savignon
(1993) in Ommaggio (1996) says that the aspects of speaking are the language users
knowledge of linguistic rules (usage) and his ability to use this knowledge in a truly


43
communication setting (use). She states these aspects as being linguistic and
communicative competence.
Communicative language tests are those which make an effort to test language in
a way that reflects the way that language is used in real communication; they focus on
language meaning and function rather than language form. If students are encouraged to
learn the target language through more communicative ways, it would make a positive
effect on their language learning.

ESL Childrens Writing Development


Writing is defined as the creation of original text using the individuals
intellectual and linguistic resources, rather than copying someone elses text, using a
prepared list of words to create sentences or stories, filling in the blanks, or practicing
handwriting.
Studies of the writing development of native speakers influenced other
researchers to investigate the writing development of second language learners. The most
general conclusion these examinations have reached is that the process of writing is
similar for first and second language learners.
The ability to write in the native language facilitates the childs ESL writing in
several different ways. Native language writing provides learners with information about
the purposes of writing. Writing ability in the native language provides second language
learners with both linguistic and nonlinguistic resources that they can use as they
approach second language writing. In addition, second language learners apply the
knowledge about writing gained in first language settings to second language settings.


44
ESL Childrens Writing Assessment


Assessments are important to the learners themselves, to their parents, to teachers,
and to educators beyond the classroom or building level. Therefore, it seems important to
advocate and promote assessment based, as much as possible, on daily classroom
activity, that is, based on the observation and documentation of what children are doing
in authentic writing situations in their own classrooms (Genishi and Dyson, 1984).
Classroom-based assessment may take many forms. Learners progress may be
documented through a systematic collection of childrens work in writing folders, and
checklists and anecdotal records may be used to note and analyze changes in writing over
time. Teachers may carry out periodic observations of individual children, recording the
individual childs writing behaviors and strategies within the context of the classroom.
At the school or district level, writing competence should be evaluated using
holistic assessments of writing samples rather than standardized tests (Myers, 1980).
Such assessments of actual writing come closer to reflecting the changes in teaching
practices that are being advocated for both native speakers and ESL learners.

Measuring Writing Development


The term writing development is ambiguous in that it can signify either
elaboration of a single text or changes in writing ability over time. The interest of this
study is change over time; measures of that change, however, must derive from ways in
which single texts vary from one another. Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki and Kim (1998)
examine the concurrent validity of over 100 different quantitative measures of writing
development used in 39 studies involving L
2
writers. As part of their analysis they


45
provide a useful starting point for considering writing development as a construct. They
argue that development in L
2
writing encompasses four components: writing fluency,
grammatical complexity, lexical complexity, and accuracy. They define the components
saying that:
Complexity and accuracy reflect the second language learners current
level of language knowledge; while complexity reveals the scope of
expanding or restructured second language knowledge; accuracy shows the
conformity of second language knowledge to target language norms. In
comparison, fluency is a function of the control in accessing that knowledge,
with control improving as the learner automatizes the process of gaining
access (1998).

Thus, in their view, development is marked by the increasing range of structures a
learner uses, the improved correspondence of those structures to the target code, and the
ability to produce those structures in a timely manner. This view of writing development
suffers one principal limitation, however, especially when considering the case of
adolescent L
2
writers: It focuses solely on control of structure without considering the
ability to generate the content encoded by the structures. It removes invention from the
writing process and ignores the possibility that learners skills in generating content may
develop as well.
Although very little research has been done on development in grade school L
2

writing, several studies suggest that the ability to generate content is an important
variable that must be considered when studying different age learners. Reppen (1994)
compared the lexico-grammatical style of essays written by third, fifth, and sixth grade
students in three Arizona schools, one of whose students were all native speakers of
Navajo. She collected essays on six topics from students at the three schools. At the third
grade level, the essays of the Navajo third graders contained significantly fewer words


46
than the essays of the two native English-speaking schools. By sixth grade, however, the
Navajo students were writing essays of comparable or even greater length. In addition to
the grade-level differences, however, Reppens (1994) study also suggests that TOPIC is
a potential confounding variable for which a researcher must carefully control in any
analysis of grade-school writing. Comparing only the sixth graders use of language
forms associated with academic literacy, she found that on more expository topics the L
1

Navajo students used less academic language than the L
1
English students; on more
personal or narrative topics, however, the two groups performed very similarly.
In one of the few studies to employ multiple measures of development, Carlisle
(1989) analyzed essays written on seven topics by fourth- and sixth-grade students in a
bilingual program, a submersion program, and native speakers in a regular program. The
dependent measures he used were ratings of rhetorical effectiveness and overall quality,
total number of words, words per T-unit, and the average number of errors per T-unit. He
found that students in the bilingual program outperformed students in the submersion
program with regard to the total number of words and words per T-unit. More
importantly from a developmental perspective, he also found that the sixth-grade students
as a whole, i.e. including the native speakers, scored higher than the fourth graders on all
the measures except error frequency, suggesting that error frequency may be less related
to cognitive development than the other measures.
Together these studies illustrate the limitations of previous research on school-age
L
2
writers both in terms of focus and learner population. The participants in these studies,
with the exception of Ferris and Politzers (1991), have been elementary-age students
who were receiving language instruction through regular or bilingual classes and not pull-


47
out ESL programs. In general the focus of such studies has been either the number of
years necessary to achieve developmental parity with native speakers or a comparison of
bilingual with submersion programs. These are socially significant issues, but these
studies might make better contributions were they to deal more directly with what their
dependent measures reveal about learner development.




















48
Conceptual Framework


A framework which builds a theoretical foundation upon which the research is
based and provides a wider perspective for this study is the concept of the Learning Style.
This paper adheres to the conviction that language learning is somehow internally
based characteristics, often not perceived or used consciously. Thus, learning styles are
the basis for the intake and understanding of new information where students can identify
their preferred learning styles and stretch those styles by examining and practicing
various learning strategies (Reid, 1987).
Felder et al., (1995) recounts that students learn in many ways by seeing and
hearing; reflecting and acting; reasoning logically and intuitively; memorizing and
visualizing. Teaching methods also vary. Some instructors lecture, others demonstrate or
discuss; some focus on rules and others on examples; some emphasize memory and
others understanding. How much a given student learns in a class is governed in part not
only by that students native ability and prior preparation but also by the compatibility of
his or her characteristic approach to learning and the instructors characteristic approach
to teaching. The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and
retrieves information are collectively termed the individuals learning style.
Research suggests that learning the process whereby knowledge is created
through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1994) is affected by learning styles, and
that in the case of students who are able to employ multiple learning styles, this effect is
positive. Eliason (1990) in Kolb (1994) hypothesizes a number of propositions for
learning styles: 1.) every person, students and teacher alike, has a learning style and
learning strengths and weaknesses; 2.) learning styles exist on wide continuums, although


49
they are often described as opposites; 3.) learning styles are value-neutral; that is, no one
style is better than others; 4.) students must be encouraged to stretch their learning
styles so that they will be more empowered in a variety of learning situations; 5.)
students learning strategies are often linked to their learning styles; 6.) teachers should
allow their students to become aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses.
Reid, (1987) points out that, learning styles are often culturally determined, acting
as a kind of unintentional hidden curriculum with obvious implications for curriculum
design, materials development, student orientation, and teacher training.
While differing on the relative amount of emphasis, most definitions agree on the
importance of cognition, affect and personality in learning styles, as in Reids (1995)
definition of an individuals natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing,
processing, and retaining new information and skills. Keefe (1979) in Reid (1995)
identifies cognitive, affective and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators
of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment.
In brief, by linking a students individual approach to learning, a clearer
understanding can be gained of how successful second language acquisition is achieved.
Approaching a learner in his/her own style will have greater chance to yield better results.
The construct of style offers an opportunity to learn how to teach and learn English
language more effectively.







50


L

E

A

R

N

E

R
The Research Paradigm





































Fig. 1. Schematic diagram showing the independent and the dependent variables of the study









LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE
PREFERENCES

Working Styles

Ways of Learning

Vocabulary Learning

Error Correction

Media Preference

Learning Activities

Assessment of Language Performance




T

E

A

C

H

E

R
LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE
SPEAKING
Task completion
Comprehensibility
Fluency
Pronunciation
Vocabulary
Language control
WRITING
Task completion
Comprehensibility
Level of discourse
Vocabulary
Language control
Mechanics



51
Hypotheses of the Study


Seeing the nature of the research, this study was intended to apply the concept of
students language learning style preferences relative to their level of language
performance in English. And so, the following hypotheses were derived:
H
O1
: There is no significant relationship between the level of students language
performance and their language learning style preferences.
H
O2
: The level of students language performance is not influenced by their
language learning style preferences.

















52
METHODOLOGY



This chapter presents the methodological procedures that have been selected by
the researcher to address the issue/problem delineated in chapter one. It presents the
necessary details allowing someone unfamiliar with the study to figure out what is being
substantiated in the study.

Locale of the Study


The study was conducted at San Agustin Institute of Technology, Valencia City,
where the teaching station of the researcher is located. It is a Catholic institution whose
administration is left entirely to the diocese of Malaybalay spearheaded by the
Missionary Congregation of Mary (MCM) Sisters. The school carries out the Total
Human and Christian Formation through Quality Catholic Education as its vision.
Founded in 1960 by Fr. Manlio Caroselli, S.J., the school metamorphosed little by
little as the years went by until it completely offered pre-school, elementary, secondary
(day and night), two high school branches in Baranggays Guinoyoran and Mailag, and
tertiary education (CHED and TESDA) recognized programs whose curriculum is
aligned to the Philippine Educational System. The school, conscious of its mission as a
Catholic school aims to respond to the needs of the country and the immediate
community in contemporary Philippines.







53
ROXAS STREET
THIS
SITE
M
A
B
I
N
I

S
T
R
E
E
T

VALENCIA CITY CENTRAL SCHOOL
TO GUINUYORAN
S
A
Y
R
E

H
I
G
H
W
A
Y

TO BATANGAN
SAIT
BONIFACIO STREET
BONIFACIO STREET
LAVIA AVENUE





























Fig. 2 The map of Bukidnon showing Valencia City and the site of the study
T
O

M
A
L
A
Y
B
A
L
A
Y

T
O

K
I
B
A
W
E

THIS
SITE


54
The Respondents


The chief respondents were ninety and seven (97) Senior High students, four (4)
language teachers and sixteen (16) subject teachers. Senior High students of San Agustin
Institute of Technology were heterogeneously grouped under three different sections
regardless of sex, ethnic origin, socioeconomic status and religious affiliations. While
teacher-respondents were all holders of bachelors degree of their respective fields and
passed the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).

Sampling Design


The teacher-respondents were drawn through purposive sampling procedure
taking into consideration their limited numbers. In addition, to determine the sample size
of the Senior High LL
2
, the researcher utilized simple random sampling through
operating Slovins formula as indicated:
n = N
1+N(e)
2

where:
n is a sample size
N is the population
e is the margin of error


Research Design



As appropriate, the research study merged descriptive and correlational design.
The first-four statement focused on employing quantitative strategy where the researcher
had to identify the language learning style preferences of the language learners and
ascertain the teachers awareness on students language learning style preferences.


55
Likewise, assessing the level of students writing and speaking abilities was also
exemplified in a descriptive scheme. Alternatively, the remaining two illustrated
significant relationship between students language learning style preferences and their
level of speaking and writing abilities. Similarly, it further proposed to account which
language learning style preferences best influence the level of students speaking and
writing abilities where correlation is of great benefit.

Research Instrument


The instrument used in this study is a 7-item language learning style preferences
questionnaire adopted from Brindley (1984) in Riazi (2007). It consists of two versions.
Version 1 is designed for students and version 2 for teachers. In the students version, the
students were supposed to state how they prefer to learn the language. In the teachers
version, the teachers were asked to express their opinions as to how they feel their
students prefer to learn the language. The questionnaire explores a particular L
2
topic
and is categorized into seven major classes: working style, ways of learning, vocabulary
learning, error correction preference, media preference, learning activities and assessment
and/or evaluation.
To quantify the level of students speaking and writing abilities, Tasks Analytic
Rubric developed by Fairfax Country Public Schools, PALS: Performance Assessment
for Language Students was utilized. Of the same descriptors however, Tasks Holistic
Rubric was considered in appraising the students speaking and writing abilities.


56
Picture cues and card cues featuring Conversation Questions for ESL classroom
were used as representative questions among the select Senior High students in
accomplishing speaking and writing tasks.

Research Methods and Procedures


The following were the research methods and procedures implemented in the
study and instructions given to the respondents:
Arrangement of Schedules. The researcher coordinated with the principal for the
arrangement of schedules in favor to the feasibility of the participants for individual
speaking and writing assessments and administration of questionnaire.
Questionnaire Administration. Questionnaires were administered among the
group of respondents to obtain students language learning style preferences and
teachers awareness on it. Retrieval followed to observe utmost confidentiality of
information among the respondents.
Assessment of Students Speaking and Writing Abilities. In assessing students
speaking and writing abilities, the researcher personally administered the ability
assessments which reflected tasks typical of the classroom settings. In this way,
assessment was authentic and aligned with classroom activities. Speaking and writing
prompts addressed relatively in neutral themes.
Speaking ability assessments were not limited to a single type and took various
forms depending on authenticity in relation to classroom activities. This included topic
monologue utilizing picture and card cues to conduct individual speaking assessments.
From among several pictures the researcher presented, students were asked to choose one


57
or two pictures that they feel they can talk about. In using card cues, a participant drew a
card to read audibly. He was given a 15-second thinking time and then let him answer
honestly what the card asked. The responses of the participant were not limited to what
was asked in the card. Instructions were given to include other information, explanation
or experience pertinent to the main answer. The researcher utilized Conversation
Questions for ESL Classroom for the student to address at length. In order to have
enough oral language production to assign a rating, at least five or six sentences were
elicited from each student.
Conversely, writing ability was tested by the researcher through direct measures
of functional literacy, such as writing samples. To construct a writing sample, the
researcher selected writing prompts that were developmentally appropriate by providing a
choice of topics. Topics provided in a single assessment were limited to one genre.
Representative topics were taken from Conversation Questions for ESL Classroom. Clear
directions were given to students. Students were notified on the amount of writing
required and how their writing was scored. A minimum of one hour was provided to
allow students to plan, organize, and revise their work. A minimum of two paragraphs
comprising at least five-sentence paragraph were required of students.
Scoring Process. Task Analytic Rubrics (TAR) on Oral and Written Proficiency
rating scale was used. The TAR is a matrix (adopted from Fairfax Country Public
Schools, PALS: Performance Assessment for Language Students) which allows for rating
students in six categories of oral (task completion, comprehensibility, fluency,
pronunciation, vocabulary and language control) and written (task completion,
comprehensibility, level of discourse, vocabulary, language control, and mechanics)


58
language proficiency. Within each category, students were rated at six different
proficiency levels. The ratings for each category were considered separate sub-scores,
each ranging from 1 to 4, with 6 indicating the approximate level of proficiency. A total
score resulted when sub-scores for the six categories were combined.

Analysis of Data


The data collected were analyzed using SPSS statistical package. Descriptive
statistics such as rank, range, mean and standard deviation were used to identify the
learning styles which students most likely preferred in language learning and determining
the teachers awareness and the level of students in speaking and writing abilities.
Additionally, Pearson product-moment correlation was employed to ascertain the
significant relationship between students language learning style preferences and their
level of language performance.
Finally, multiple regression was utilized to determine which language learning
style preferences significantly influence the level of students language performance.
Results concerning each item in the questionnaire would be presented in a tabular
form. In the columns, items stand for the numeric values of the questionnaire items
respectively.









59
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA



This section is equipped with the definitive results and their meanings as to what
the researcher has found on the breadth of investigation apropos to the problem
statements as clearly defined in the first chapter. It further deciphers the most important
knowledge and understandings necessary for drawing conclusions and recommendations.

Descriptive Analysis of Students Language Learning Style Preferences
And the Teachers Awareness on How Students Learn


Responses of the senior high students on language learning style preferences and
the teachers awareness on how students learn which rendered significant results are
hereby presented and discussed as follows.

Working Style


Table 1 gives an account of students working style preferences and the teachers
awareness as to how their students prefer to accomplish and take their own responsibility
in language learning within a wide range of alternative classroom structures.

Table 1. Students working style preferences

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
In class, do students
like learning
1.) individually 3.35 0.85 3 Sometimes 3.30 0.97 3 Sometimes
2.) in pair 3.59 0.71 1 Usually 3.90 0.71 2 Usually
3.) in small groups 3.50 0.85 2 Usually 4.35 0.67 1 Usually
4.) in one large group? 2.50 0.84 4 Not often 2.80 1.19 4 Sometimes
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


60
One of the important components of language learning is the opportunity for
active practice and feedback. As classes get larger and larger, the availability of such
opportunities grows less and less. One solution to the problem is the use of pair or small
groups in the classroom (Svinicki, 2008).
As noted, the results showed that senior high students are classified as global
learners who tend to learn more effectively through concrete experiences and by
interaction with pairs and or with other people (Reid, 1995). The result suggests that
students generally prefer to work either in pair (3.59) ranking first, or in small group
(3.50) closing up at second. Similarly, a mean of 4.35 in small groups and 3.90 in pairs
on the teachers response indicate that teachers are aware of students working styles.
In addition, the results show that communicative approach to language learning is
more favorable to the senior high students and show reluctance to working on their own
and in one large group. The data surprisingly support the learner-centered approach
which has been widely advocated by a number of English practitioners who describe pair
or small group work as indispensable. Lately, pair work and small group have been
considered as the most effective way to develop communicative skills of interaction in
the target language (Kavaliauskiene, 2003).
Moreover, the merit of cooperative learning such as in pair or in small group
when fully realized assures such features as positive interdependence, individual
accountability, and appropriate uses of teamwork and interpersonal skills (Johnson et al.,
1991) and shows positive results in both language skills and altruism (Gunderson and
Johnson, 1990).


61
More to these, Svinicki (2008) outlines several advantages when students work in
pairs and in small group. She notes that teachers will find students more likely to
participate because a pair or small group is less intimidating and much harder to hide in;
students can learn a great deal from one another without teachers intervention, provided
they are given clear instructions; teachers will be able to devote more time to those
students or groups which need special attention; and finally, students begin to take more
responsibility for their own learning, thus freeing the teachers from having to do it all.
On the side of these positive claims, findings explored by Wintergerst et al.
(2003) among Russian EFL students Russian ESL students and Asian ESL students
correspond to the above assertion that these three groups of learners clearly preferred
group activity above individual work. However, such results differ from the findings
identified by Reid (1987) admitting that ESL students showed a negative preference for
group learning. The same true scores conducted by Reid in 1995 among students from a
variety of ethnic backgrounds and found that every background expressed a minor or
negative preference for group work, with English speakers giving it the lowest rating.


















62
Ways of Learning


With table 2, students were asked to express their preferences in ways of learning
and so their teachers assumption as to how they approach to language learning and
acquisition that serve as a prime source of information and knowledge of the target
language.

Table 2. Students ways of learning

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
Do students like
learning by
1.) listening 3.87 0.89 1 Usually 3.85 0.87 1 Usually
2.) reading 3.53 0.85 3 Usually 3.10 0.78 5 Sometimes
3.) copying from
the board
3.17 0.93 6 Sometimes 3.55 0.88 2 Sometimes
4.) listening and
taking notes
3.73 0.78 2 Usually 3.35 0.98 4 Sometimes
5.) reading and
making notes
3.38 0.87 5 Sometimes 3.45 0.60 3 Sometimes
6.) repeating what
you hear
3.39 0.81 4 Sometimes 3.05 0.68 6 Sometimes
7.) making
summaries?
2.73 0.86 7 Sometimes 3.05 0.75 6 Sometimes
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


Several researches support the effectiveness of using second language learning
strategies and have shown that successful language learners often use strategies in an
orchestrated fashion, which often results to an improved proficiency or achievement
overall or in specific skill areas (Oxford et al., 1993; Thompson and Rubin, 1993).
As shown, a mean of 3.87, senior high students asserted their preference by
listening and closely followed by the item, listening and taking down notes which


63
rendered a mean of 3.73. Correspondingly, such students preference by listening is
known by a mean of 3.85 of their teachers.
As simplified in the table, it can be inferred from the scores that students espouse
listening as an active process by which they receive, construct meaning from and respond
to spoken and or non verbal messages. As such, it forms an integral part of the language
learning process and communication in general (Emmert, 1994). Additionally, senior
high school students, under no circumstances would also want to adopt a totally passive
role in the learning process since they are inclined to be involved in two-dimensional
phase of learning just like to listen and make notes all at once. It is in making notes where
a language learner develops a sense of listening, allowing himself/herself to recognize
main ideas and to understand the organization of the materials.
By emphasizing the role of comprehensible input, second language acquisition
research has given a major boost to listening. As Rost (1994) points out, listening is vital
in the language classroom because it provides input for the learner. Without
understanding input at the right level, any learning simply cannot begin. Listening is thus
fundamental to speaking, the former being a receptive skill and the latter, productive.
On the contrary, by making summary as preference to ways of learning obtained a
lowest rating of 2.73 as mean, taking into consideration that breaking down content into
manageable small succinct pieces is no minor undertaking. It is one of the hardest
strategies for the students to grasp and one of the hardest strategies to teach either,
though, considered being the most valuable strategy and competency in language learning
(Jones, 2009). Needless to say, students felt so unresponsive to making summaries as a
way of learning the target language.


64
Vocabulary Learning

Table 3 illustrates students preferences in vocabulary learning and the teachers
response as to how students move toward learning new set of words of the target
language which provide them numerous opportunities to comprehend, remember, and
produce the target language.

Table 3. Students vocabulary learning preference

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
When learning a new
vocabulary, do students
like learning by
1.) using new words
in a sentence
3.37 0.83 2 Sometimes 3.75 0.71 2 Usually
2.) thinking of
relationships
between known
and new
3.22 0.78 4 Sometimes 3.40 0.59 4 Sometimes
3.) saying or writing
words several
times
3.21 0.76 5 Sometimes 3.25 0.91 5 Sometimes
4.) avoiding verbatim
translation
2.48 0.56 7 Not Often 2.65 0.81 7 Sometimes
5.) translating from
English
3.47 0.87 1 Sometimes 3.80 0.69 1 Usually
6.) translating into
English
3.34 0.86 3 Sometimes 3.55 0.60 3 Usually
7.) guessing the
unknown
2.70 0.75 6 Sometimes 2.90 0.96 6 Sometimes
8.) reading without
looking up words?
2.43 0.76 8 Not Often 2.60 0.82 8 Sometimes
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


Vocabulary learning is a complicated task, though many may perceive it as
simple. The learner has to perform several tasks when learning a new word: spelling,
pronunciation, stress, grammatical class, semantic category, in combination with other


65
grammatical elements in the sentence, and possible contextual occurrences in various
situations (Bada et al., 2000).
As gleaned from results in the table, students expressed their strong preference by
taking advantage of the L
2
(second language) as reference to their L
1
(first language) in
order to enrich their vocabulary and get them on the way with the acquisition of L
2

(second language).
Acknowledging that students seemed definite of their preference, it is evident that
giving both items in translation were strongly preferred, obtaining the mean of 3.47 for
item no. 5 and a mean of 3.34 for item no.6. In similar fashion, teachers awareness on
students vocabulary learning is akin to students choices giving both the same items in
translation higher ratings. Thus, a plausible explanation may be that learners often use
translation as a learning strategy to comprehend, remember, and produce a target
language.
As for the students, translation is typically being used to transfer written or
spoken SL (second language) to equivalent written or spoken TL (target language) texts.
In general, the purpose of translation among the students is to decode various kinds of
texts including religious, literary, scientific, mathematical and philosophical texts in
another language and thus making them available to expand their vocabulary in all
subjects taken whose medium of instruction is English. On this regard, for culture-
specific concepts which language learners are inevitably coping with, it would be easy for
them to learn new vocabulary through translation from an SL to a TL. Furthermore, under
the circumstances of the process of learning L
2
(second language), translation would be
much easier than it actually is (Ordudari, 2007). Jaaskelainen (1999) considers strategy


66
as, a series of competencies, a set of steps or processes that favor the acquisition,
storage, and or utilization of information. He maintains that strategies are heuristic and
flexible in nature, and their adoption implies a decision influenced by amendments in the
translators objectives.
The research, however, found that students exude off-putting response on items
avoiding verbatim translation (2.48) and reading without looking up words (2.43)
respectively. It is therefore, recognizing the results, logically consistent and puts forth
translation a real challenge in making up a new word and in attempting to produce the
precise contextual meaning of the original (first language to second language and vice
versa) within the constraint of the target language.
Recent research on vocabulary learning style preferences has demonstrated that
such findings of this study propose differences in terms of vocabulary learning
preferences. Strapas (2003) study in which learners who were doing ESP course in
Malaysia preferred to learn new words when they are contextualized parallels this study
in which the respondents found it positive and effective next to translation. Riazi (2007)
in his case study on students vocabulary learning preferences, concluded that students
showed disinclination towards translation and so with the teachers belief on their
students. One reason for this finding declared that students somehow were oriented
towards using authentic materials as they learn new vocabulary in the target language.










67
Error Correction Preference


Table 4 elucidates students preference in error correction and the teachers
awareness as to how students wish to be corrected in an appropriate manner suitable for
their unique language development.

Table 4. Students error correction preference

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
When students speak,
do they want to be
corrected
1.) immediately, in
front of everyone
2.76 1.00 2 Sometimes 2.90 1.16 3 Sometimes
2.) later, at the end of
the activity, in
front of everyone
2.65 0.96 3 Sometimes 3.00 1.02 2 Sometimes
3.) later, in private? 3.30 1.12 1 Sometimes 3.30 1.12 1 Sometimes
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


Lyster and Ranta (1997) point out that the research that has focused on the issue
of error treatment in the second language classrooms in the past 20 years has continued to
pose the questions framed by Hendrickson in his 1978 review of feedback on errors in
foreign language questions. One of those five questions has something to clarify with
table 4. When should learners errors be corrected?
The type of corrective feedback which students most likely desired as revealed in
the table 4 is later, in private, with a mean of 3.30. In the same way, teachers
awareness on this preference is parallel to students scores with 3.30 as mean. This fact
assumes the most desirable among practitioners a good practice of avoiding giving
correction during or immediately after activities, basically to avoid learners


68
embarrassment (Kavaliauskiene, 2003). Error correction made immediately or later in
front of everyone did not have much impact among the students in language learning
process.

Media Preference


Table 5 shows the students media preference and the teachers response as to
how these technological platforms increase interactivity in language learning as students
take advances towards the improvement of different linguistic skills including listening,
reading, speaking and writing.

Table 5. Students media preference

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
Do students like
learning from
1.) television/video/
films/computer
3.88 0.86 1 Usually 4.35 0.81 1 Usually
3.) tapes/cassettes 2.26 0.65 6 Not Often 3.10 1.07 4 Sometimes
4.) written material 3.63 0.83 3 Usually 3.60 0.68 3 Usually
5.) the blackboard 3.67 0.86 2 Usually 3.80 0.89 2 Usually
6.) pictures/posters? 3.38 0.79 4 Sometimes 3.80 0.89 2 Usually
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


Multimedia like computer has been considered as an important learning tool in the
modern second language learning. Computer assisted language learning (CALL) has
provided amazing opportunities for improving second language learning such as it can
motivate students interesting or improve learners varied linguistic skills (Abuseileek,
2007).



69
As illustrated in table 5, television, video and lately computers, being the
powerful media, received the highest rank among other possibilities in language learning.
Garnering the mean of 3.88 from the students and 4.35 from the teachers, it is obvious
that teachers are aware of their students media preference, and hence should make more
effective use of such media in their language teaching endeavor.
Celce-Murcia (2001) speculates that such media motivate students by bringing a
slice of real life into the classroom and by presenting language in its more complete
communicative context. Integrating computer technology and other multimedia in
English can help language learners overcome their problems in English learning. CALL
is good at improving learners different linguistics including listening, reading, speaking
and writing. Since many language learners consider listening and speaking as their most
urgent skills they want to improve, they can use computer to facilitate their listening and
speaking skills (Qiqi, 2008). The advantages of multimedia in language curriculum have
been well documented in the research literature. As most often cited by researchers,
among its greatest virtues are: the computers usefulness as a text-based medium that
amplifies students attention to linguistic form (Warschauer, 1997); a stimulus for
increased written L
2
(second language) production (Kern, 1995); a less stressful
environment for L
2
practice (Chun, 1998); a more equitable and non-threatening forum
for L
2
discussions, especially for women, minorities, and nonassertive personalities
(Warschauer, 1995; 1997); and an expanded access channel with possibilities for creating
global learning networks (Cummins, 1995). Swaffar (1998) has succinctly summarized
the benefits derived from computer mediated communication (CMC) as compared to
classroom oral exchanges: Networked exchanges seem to help all individuals in


70
language classes engage more frequently, with greater confidence, and with greater
enthusiasm in the communicative process than is characteristic for similar students in oral
classrooms.
More often than not, computer is a more interactive aid compared to others, such
as tape recorder which receives the lowest value (2.26). Books and recording can tell a
student what the rules are and what the right solutions are, but simply cannot analyze the
specific mistakes the student has made and react in a manner which leads learners to
erroneous solution (Jasmansyah, 2009). Computer is an interactive instruction technique
whereby a computer is used to present the instructional material and monitor the learning
that takes place not only in language learning but across subject areas where these media
can be of countless advantage.
Looking closely to option 5, learning from the blackboard, also received relatively
high rating among the students, 3.67 and 3.80 from the teacher. In actual setting,
blackboard fundamentally places language teaching and learning available between the
learners and the teachers in the Philippine classrooms. This claim was reinforced by the
teachers awareness on students ways of learning that copying from the board (3.55) was
pretty much undertaken by students. It would seem that traditional means in promoting
language learning did not give the impression to diminish students level of interest.
Blackboard still affords students to be one of their preferences in language learning.









71
Learning Activities


Table 6 highlights students preferences on language learning activities as the
teachers engage them in a series of interrelated tasks that would reinforce skills, facts and
ideas which will eventually develop their linguistic skills in different contexts and how
these practices relieve students anxiety and boredom in learning the English language.

Table 6. Students preferences in learning activities

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
In carrying out language
learning activities in
class, do students like
1.) role play 3.27 0.94 3 Sometimes 4.20 0.69 2 Usually
2.) language games 3.08 0.89 8 Sometimes 3.25 1.25 6 Sometimes
3.) songs 3.16 0.88 5 Sometimes 3.85 0.93 4 Usually
4.) talking with and
listening to
other students
3.53 0.89 1 Usually 4.05 0.82 3 Usually
5.) memorizing
conversations/
dialogues
3.31 0.82 2 Sometimes 3.25 0.71 6 Usually
6.) dictation 3.10 0.75 7 Sometimes 2.90 0.91 8 Sometimes
7.) getting information
from guest speakers
3.19 0.78 5 Sometimes 2.85 0.98 9 Sometimes
8.) getting information
from planned visits
2.92 0.78 9 Sometimes 2.95 0.60 7 Sometimes
9.) writing a learning
diary/journal
3.21 1.06 4 Sometimes 4.25 0.78 1 Usually
10.) writing grammar
exercises for
peers?
3.13 0.95 6 Sometimes 3.50 0.82 5 Sometimes
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never


Language is an integral part of learning, and plays a key role in classroom
teaching and learning, therefore, learners confidence and proficiency as talkers and
listeners are paramount. Listening has implications for speech development, thinking and


72
learning generally and talking helps learners sort out what they think and is the main
means of social communication and interaction as a whole.
As can be closely observed, such result is in congruence with students
preferences in ways of learning where students expressed their strong preference in
listening. As pointed out in table 6, students most likely prefer having language learning
activities radiated through talking with and listening to other students. Students proved
this belief by a mean of 3.53. It is also worth noting that teachers awareness on this
option nearly bears resemblance to that of students response.
The striking point about these results is that, students were inclined to students-to-
students interaction as the most beneficial in language learning. For this reason, it is
essential that students are provided with planned opportunities for speaking in a range of
contexts, including to different audiences, such as class, the teacher and other adults; with
different levels of formality such as with peers, to another class, a whole-school assembly
and for different purposes, such as recounting events and telling stories, explaining,
describing, justifying views and persuading others.
Given that language primarily exists to facilitate communication, interaction in
that language must have an important role to play in developing a learners ability in that
target language. In other words, teachers need to promote learner interaction in order to
help the learners succeed. As Howarth (2006) puts in, interaction helps learners develop
language learning and social skills. And so, maximizing interaction in the classroom is
an important part of the teachers role. Interaction will not necessarily happen
spontaneously, however, and in line with this view, it has to be considered before
teaching.


73
Assessment of Language Performance

Table 7 sums up students preferences in language performance assessment and
the teachers awareness as to how students want to be evaluated as they progress in
acquiring measurable language proficiency in the course of language learning.

Table 7. Students preferences in language performance assessment

INDICATORS
STUDENTS RESPONSE TEACHERS RESPONSE
MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION MEAN SD RANK DESCRIPTION
How do students like to
find out how much
their English is
improving by
1. written tasks set
by the teacher
3.65 0.84 2 Usually 3.85 0.74 2 Usually
2. seeing if you can
use the language
you have learned
in real-life
situations?
3.68 0.86 1 Usually 4.05 0.60 1 Usually
Range: 4.51 5.00 Always 3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes 1.51 2.50 Not Often
1.00 1.50 Never

The efforts to have students learn how to use language in the classroom
oftentimes seem to have little influence on how students are assessed. Students may
spend the majority of their class time in using the language only to encounter traditional
paper and pencil tests to measure what they know. Such a gap between instruction and
assessment practices can lead to student and teacher dissatisfaction in the second
language learning experience in addition to not providing an accurate assessment of what
students actually know on how to do with the language they have been learning (World
Languages Professionals Development Institute, 2000).


74
As is apparent from the results, students and teachers responses overwhelmingly
met the common denominator. By a mean of 3.68, students expressed that their language
performance would be evaluated based on their performance in authentic
communications. This point of view is made known by a mean of 4.05 of their teachers.
Needless to say, both students and teachers alike were in favor to judge L
2
improvement
on the basis of students capability to use language effectively in real-life
communication, rather than being assessed formally by the teacher.
Congruent to this point of attention, students find performance-based assessment
as a constructive aid to understand the development of their communicative competence.
Having an idea of this kind, it may be easy for them to see how they progress in their
ability to use language effectively. One credible rationale is that, performance-based
assessment has enough flexibility built-instrument that can be truly appropriate in
creating a personal meaning even in a classroom setting, thereby tending them to perform
best when they are motivated by real reasons to use language plausible in their lives.
Such findings of this interest is in accordance with Riazis (2007) study in which
most of the students showed their preference towards being assessed in a way that would
give them the ability to use the target language in simulated real-life situations which
unexpectedly turns out to leave a great deal among the students.
The idea of performance-based assessment increases confidence in assessing
student learning for language teachers (Tedick, 1998). In addition to receiving feedback
on student learning, they also get feedback on how well they are teaching because this
informs them that assessment and instruction work simultaneously through considering
the role of performance-based assessment than any other means of traditional assessment


75
devices. It holds true among the teachers that performance tasks require learners to
integrate content and process.

Descriptive Analysis of the Level of Students Speaking and
Writing Abilities in All Analytic Components in English


The level of students speaking and writing abilities in all analytic components in
English which were numerically prominent are presented and discussed as follows.

Level of Students Speaking Ability


Table 8 represents the analytic and holistic scores of students speaking ability as
they completed a well-defined task maximizing meaningful context of real language use
in spoken medium allowing them to create personal meanings on the theme they had to
address.

Table 8. Level of students speaking ability in all analytic components in English

INDICATORS MEAN SD DESCRIPTION
1. Task Completion 2.53 0.66 Meets Expectations
2. Comprehensibility 2.54 0.66 Meets Expectations
3. Fluency 2.22 0.54 Almost Meets Expectations
4. Pronunciation 2.50 0.71 Almost Meets Expectations
5. Vocabulary 2.37 0.65 Almost Meets Expectations
6. Language Control 2.29 0.57 Almost Meets Expectations
TOTAL 2.40 0.13 Almost Meets Expectations
Range: 3.51 4.0 Exceeds Expectations
2.51 3.5 Meets Expectations
1.51 2.5 Almost Meets Expectations
1.00 1.5 Does Not Meet Expectations


Speaking ability is the power to communicate orally. As intuitively stressed by Ur
(1996), speaking seems to be the most important of all the four language skills since


76
speaking includes all other skills of knowing that particular language. In other words,
learners end product of language learning is to be capable of speaking the target
language fluently.
Overall, task completion and comprehensibility are big picture domains which
reflect the communication of the message. Consequently, these are affected by fluency,
pronunciation, vocabulary and language control (Foreign Language Program of Studies,
2004).
In general, the results of the study provide evidence that students had met the
expectations, 2.53, 2.54 as mean respectively, in terms of task completion; that is to say,
students responses directly related to the given task. It can be noted during the
presentation of topics that students prompted pertinent information or detail sufficient
enough to complete the task based on the learned material as the researcher made the
most of card and picture cues. In addition, students comprehensibility in speaking
manifests the same description so as to the task completion, where a sympathetic listener
may have to pause two or three times in order to comprehend the responses of the
students. In other words, responses were comprehensible and required minimal
interpretation on the part of the listener.
In quantifying students speaking ability, various factors were looked into.
Among these factors affecting the major domains (task completion and
comprehensibility) in speaking are fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary and language
control. As a result, students randomly learned partial feature of the speaking skills.
First, the results displayed in the table reveal that students fluency in speaking
obtained the lowest mean (2.22) which can be generally perceived that despite the fact


77
that students responses were mostly complete, there were significant pauses made as
they searched for words to complete the thoughts. However, this occurrence did not
impede them to produce an undeveloped response as they completed the task neither
hindered comprehensibility whenever these responses required interpretation on the part
of the listener.
Second, the goal of any oral communication is to express oneself clearly so that one
could be understood by the listeners. The study of pronunciation may seem tedious or even
unimportant to some but correct pronunciation leads to expressing oneself effectively.
Students level of proficiency in this domain is relatively high, with 2.50 as mean.
Nonetheless, students still almost meet expectations in this level of proficiency, meaning,
there were occasions where students pronunciation interferes with communication skills and
speech continued to be influenced by the first language, though, understood by a
sympathetic listener. This is true among the set of respondents, knowing that students
pronunciation was brought by an individual experience from different cultures and from
different levels of ability. Every language teacher should clearly give students
competitive speech drills through carefully designed content and logical teaching
experiences to improve language learners English proficiency.
Third, considering the fact that students must acquire sufficient vocabulary in
order to speak extensively, the result discloses a mean of 2.37, that is, students almost
meet expectations in this proficiency level. It is evident among the responses that
students exhibited minimal variety of vocabulary and brought into play some repetitive
words and expressions. It is, therefore, reasonable for language teachers to take
responsibility in responding a need for continued attention toward vocabulary


78
development through intensifying vocabulary enrichment intervention intended to acquire
useful words and word-learning strategies.
Finally, the emphasis on language control is indispensable to build not partial but
whole speaking ability. Subject matters which were tested in this domain are the basic
language structures produced by students, whereby, students were formfocused and
displayed their use and accuracy of the languages rulebased system. It can be gleaned
from the evaluation that students actual performance around this criterion drop under
almost meets expectations gaining the mean of 2.29, that is, basic language structures
were used correctly and approximately half of the time. Thus, emerging use of the basic
language structures is strongly established.
The needs of struggling ESL speakers vary depending upon their prior
knowledge, skills, motivation, and level of self-regulation. Periodically, allowing students
to speak about a topic of their choice is an important means of promoting individual
diversity and tapping into the personal interests of students. Teachers should strive to
motivate struggling ESL to speak by exploring topics of interest to them. Teachers need
to stress the significance and usefulness of speaking beyond the classroom and emphasize
the value of speaking in success in college or in the workplace.














79
Level of Students Writing Ability


Table 8 represents the analytic and holistic scores of students writing ability as
they completed a well-defined task maximizing meaningful context of real language use
in written medium allowing them to create personal meanings on thematically related
topics.

Table 9. Level of students writing ability in all analytic components in English

INDICATORS MEAN SD DESCRIPTION
1. Task Completion
2.76 0.54 Meets Expectations
2. Comprehensibility
2.75 0.55 Meets Expectations
3. Level of Discourse
2.52 0.60 Meets Expectations
4. Vocabulary
2.53 0.53 Meets Expectations
5. Language Control
2.45 0.55 Almost Meets Expectations
6. Mechanics
2.59 0.52 Meets Expectations
TOTAL
2.60 0.12 Meets Expectations
Range: 3.51 4.0 Exceeds Expectations
2.51 3.5 Meets Expectations
1.51 2.5 Almost Meets Expectations
1.00 1.5 Does Not Meet Expectations


Writing ability is defined as the creation of original texts using the individuals
intellectual and linguistic resources. It is considered to be one of the most perplexing
forms of articulating thoughts and ideas on paper. It turns out to be a hard nut to crack
because it requires the ability to think freely, giving thoughts a modicum of leeway, and
express ideas and experienced feelings sincerely and openly (Correli, 2006). Like any
other macro skills in English language, task completion and comprehensibility cover the
significant picture of the domains which reflect the communication of the message.
Consequently, these are affected by level of discourse, vocabulary, language control and
mechanics (Foreign Language Program of Studies, 2004).


80
Table 9 extrapolates, from mere evidences, the level of students writing ability in
all analytic components in English. Some important points which are worth highlighting
is that, the research results indicated that students meet expectations in five analytic
components in writing namely: task completion (2.76), comprehensibility (2.75),
vocabulary 2.53), level of discourse (2.52), and mechanics (2.59). Such instances
presented contravene with that of the speaking elements maintaining two major domains
(task completion and comprehensibility) to have reached level 3.
As to the content presentation, the language use, the essay writing format, and the
writing components, students accomplishments of all required elements were present,
related to the task as given and showed some organization. Moreover, the texts were
made comprehensible, requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the reader.
Students ideas flowed in such a way that the reader may have to pause briefly in order to
fully understand all of the texts.
Looking into the students vocabulary, Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) in Proctor et
al., (2005), identified vocabulary knowledge as the most important indicator of language
proficiency, which is particularly important for comprehension of both spoken and
written language. Ultimately, the results indicated that students meet expectations in
this endeavor. In line with this viewpoint, students used a variety of vocabulary and
expressions accurately and appropriately. There were attempts made by students to
include less commonly used vocabulary and expressions in achieving their proficiency
level which could be construed that students vocabulary knowledge is adequate to meet
the expectation within the constraint of written medium.


81
Certainly, the key to success in students writing ability lies in the authors
linguistic sophistications to communicate ideas. At this level, students typically
responded using memorized phrases and sentences. However, there were a number of
students who took risk and attempted to actually create with the language and begin to
enrich their written communication. Explicitly, students sentences consisted of some
recombination of learned material, demonstrating an emerging ability of complete
sentences. Along with these were the use of variety of verbs (about 5) and possibly of
subjects and the use of some cohesive devices which add to the overall flow and richness
of the writing.
Primarily, mechanics treats all four different aspects in writing ability specifically
on the accuracy of spelling, punctuation and capitalization and the proper use of
diacritical marks. Students released their inner genius and vent on paper the
technicalities of writing. It is important to note that students wrote mostly with accurate
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, although, there may have been occasional
errors, however, these did not impede understanding of content by a sympathetic reader.
In this aspect, students gave the utmost latitude in terms of their topic presentation and
development of a piece of writing.
On the contrary, the researcher, however, found that students language control
received the lowest mean, 2.45 among any other components of the written medium. This
result is closely congruent to their level of speaking ability where they observed correctly
and approximately half of the time in the use of the basic language structures.
Categorically, it does simply entail that students almost meet the expectations in this
undertaking. Given that this domain in both spoken and written media requires a great


82
deal among the students need to be improved, language teachers should exert more effort
in honing students with grammar lessons and strategies aptly within every language
learners grasp.
To sum up, the results call for the language teachers to open the door of their
tasks in helping students cross the threshold leading to the process and explorations in
writing and nudge up the ladder of writing ability the bizarre ideas that amassed their
minds. By keeping students hands moving, they would feel a growing sense of
inspiration and confidence. In the course of time, they will become a practiced hand in
writing. Without a doubt, one could find their journal notes a rich source of inspiration
and ideas.




























83
Correlation Analysis of Students Language Learning Styles Preferences
And Their Level of Language Performance in English


Relationship between students language learning style preferences and their level
of language performance in English which were statistically significant are hereby
reported and deliberated.

Table 10 presents the correlated values which were statistically significant among
the first-rate variables of the students language learning style preferences and their
language performance level in English.

Table 10. Correlation analysis between students language learning style preferences
and their speaking and writing abilities in English

LANGUAGE LEARNING
STYLE CLASSES
SPEAKING WRITING TOTAL
Correlation Correlation Correlation
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
1. Working Style 0.052 ns 0.06 ns 0.059 ns
2. Ways of Learning 0.132 ns 0.062 ns 0.105 ns
3. Vocabulary Learning -0.038 ns 0.011 ns 0.032 ns
4. Media Preference -0.055 ns -0.086 ns -0.073 ns
5. Learning Activities 0.139 ns 0.122 ns 0.139 ns
6. Error Correction 0.174 ns 0.183 ns 0.188 ns
7. Language Performance Assessment .350
**
.217
*
.305
**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
ns not significant


Learning language and learning style are surely inseparable as part of a more
general process of learning a communicative methodology. Brumfit (1995) maintains that
real advances in the levels of linguistic competence achievable by learners, however, will
only be achieved through a better understanding of the processes involved in language
use and choice of learning.


84
Correlation indicates that out of seven (7) select indicators, assessment of
language performance displayed a significant correlation with that of students speaking
ability on the basis of r =.350 with .000 significance at 0.01 level 2-tailed. Similarly,
students writing ability, by virtue of r =.217 with .033 significance at 0.05 level 2-tailed,
points out similar significance with that of how they are being assessed by their language
performance. Overall, correlation factor suggests a strong reference that the better the
language performance assessment, the more likely the students to demonstrate their
abilities in speaking and writing. Hence, correlation between these two variables yielded
positive as sustained by r = .305 with 0.002 significance at 0.01 level 2-tailed.
Further keeping track on the observation, a disclosure of no significant
relationship between the level of students speaking and writing abilities over their
working styles (0.052), ways of learning (0.132), vocabulary learning (-0.038), error
correction (-0.055), media preference (0.139) and learning activities (0.174) resulted.
These considerations suggest a need for retrospection on the approach the way the
assessment of language performance should be put forward around the students
tendency, where these language learners can perform best.
On this regard, Assessment Team at the University of Minnesotas Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) and the Minnesota Articulation
Project (MNAP) recount that for all modalities, students should be situated within the
core of an organizational scenario. By then, such factor of relevance provides them with a
plausible reason and motivation to perform better if not best. This is especially true when
the kind of a language assessment represents social context appropriate among learners
level of interests, developmental level, age, socioeconomic background, etc.


85
Clearly, meeting the students expectations in the way they are assessed in their
language performance promise to yield better consequence in the course of second
language learning.

Multiple Regression Analysis of Students Language Learning Style Preferences
And Their Level of Language Performance in English


Table 11 indicates the prevalence of language learning style class, which
significantly influences students level of speaking and writing abilities in English among
the seven (7) select predictor variables which have been tested.

Table 11. Regression analysis of students language learning style preferences and their
level of speaking and writing abilities in English

INDICATOR
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients

B
Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 68.756 3.847

17.873 .000

Language Performance
Assessment
3.226 1.032 .305 3.126 .002
R = .305 r
2
= .093 F-value = 9.770 Prob. = .002


Well-designed assessment procedures are essential to meeting the needs of
language students acquiring English as their second language (Pierce and OMalley,
1992). To a major extent, students tend to perform best when they are motivated by real
reasons to use language reasons that would be plausible in their lives outside of the
classroom (MLPA, 2002).
Multiple regression analysis has shown language performance assessment
statistically significant at (p<0.01) to have a greater influence on the level of students


86
speaking and writing abilities as strengthened by the beta weight ( = .305). The results
proved plausible to all other seven (7) predictor variables that had been tested.
Some helpful information could explain the value of parameters underpinning the
regression outcome. The World Languages Professional Development Institute (2000)
has given an account that the effort to have students learn how to use language in the
classroom oftentimes seems to have an influence on how students are assessed. Students
may spend the majority of their class time in using the language only to encounter
traditional paper and pencil tests to measure what they know or vice versa. Such a gap
between instruction and assessment practices can lead to student and teacher
dissatisfaction in the second language learning experience in addition to not providing an
accurate assessment of what students actually know how to do with the language they
have been learning.
Moreover, in consonance with the view promoted by the World Languages
Professional Development Institute, Lewin and Shoemaker (1998) contends that well-
designed assessments motivate students to work hard to perform at their highest possible
level. Additionally, language performance assessment, at any origin, does not determine
who is best but helps learners do their best (Foreign Language Frameworks Nebraska,
1996).
Suffice it to say that the result provided here is more than adequate for a coherent
investigation that language performance assessment has potentially served as empirical
evidence to the academic ends of the language learners specifically in the sphere of
speaking and writing.


87
From the foregoing analysis, however, the equation useful in predicting the
percentage on the level of students speaking and writing abilities (Y) as indicated by F-
value (9.770) with its corresponding probability value (0.002) is significant at (p< 0.01).
This model is illustrated:

Y = 68.756 + 3.226 X
1



Where: 68.756 is constant
X
1
= Language performance assessment


Guided by this equation, therefore, the results reject hypothesis 2 that the level of
students language performance in English is not influenced by language learning style
preferences, since regression analysis validated language performance assessment to be
statistically significant among other seven (7) predictor variables under study, thus,
leading to the conclusion that language performance assessment best influences the level
of students speaking and writing abilities in English.




















88
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



This section contains the summary and critical discussion of the significant
findings presented in relation to previously identified problem statements in the first
chapter. Conclusions, recommendations and implications are further offered by intent to
generalize the results of the field of investigations.

Summary


This paper has considered six problem statements exclusively on students
language learning style preferences and their speaking and writing abilities in English.
The inquiry focused on 1.) identifying language learning styles most likely preferred by
the students, 2.) finding out teachers awareness on students language learning style
preferences, 3.) obtaining the level of students speaking ability, 4.) obtaining the level of
students writing ability, 5.) establishing a significant relationship between students
language learning style preferences and their level of language performance in English
and 6.) determining students language learning style preferences that significantly
influence their level of language performance in English.
Data were gathered at San Agustin Institute of Technology, bringing about ninety
seven (97) Senior High students and twenty (20) teacher-respondents as chief
representative of the study. Results were completed through questionnaire administration
and individualized language performance assessment.
The data collected were analyzed using SPSS statistical package. Descriptive
statistics such as rank, range, mean and standard deviation were carried out to identify


89
students learning style preferences, the teachers awareness and the level of students
speaking and writing abilities. Furthermore, Pearson product-moment correlation was
employed to define the significant relationship between students language learning style
preferences and their level of language performance in English. Finally, multiple
regression was utilized to determine language learning style preferences that significantly
influence the level of students language performance in English.
The results of analysis showed the overall patterns of students language learning
style preferences in terms of working style, ways of learning, vocabulary learning, error
correction preference, media preference, learning activities and assessment and/or
evaluation.
Students working style revealed that they prefer to work in a communicative
approach, ranking in pair (3.59) and in small groups (3.50) relatively high above
individual (3.35) and in one large group (2.50) options.
In the light of expressing their ways of learning, students asserted their preference
by listening (3.87) and without fail, students seconded it by listening and taking down
notes (3.73). The former articulates the role of comprehensible input among the students
as they progress in second language learning and or language acquisition, while the latter
traces students inclination to adopt two-dimensional phase of learning. However, making
summary (2.73), made the students feel indifferent in ways of language learning.
As to students preference in vocabulary learning, subsequently, students opted
translations by any means (translating from/into) (3.47; 3.34) and by using new word in a
sentence (3.37). For them, translating and contextualizing newly acquired vocabulary
help them comprehend, remember and produce the target language. Quite the reverse to


90
these are avoiding verbatim translations (2.48) and reading without looking up words
(2.43) which were rated the lowest, implying that students have stood consistent as to
what their preferences in vocabulary learning must be.
With specific reference to students preference in error correction, students
appealed correction to be done later, in private (3.30), basically to avoid embarrassment.
Admittedly, students likewise, did not mind having their teachers correct them publicly
(2.65, 2.76).
To show that they are predisposed with the current trend in language learning,
students considered multimedia like computers, TV, video and film (3.88) to be the most
beneficial. Certainly, option like multimedia is fascinating though, students still afforded
to regard blackboard (3.67) as considerable medium in language learning which, in turn,
the most accessible medium in a typical classroom setting. Off putting score was given to
option like tapes/cassettes (2.26) by students.
Taking the choices of language learning activities, students, beyond doubt,
believed on students-to-students interaction as favorable to language learning, expressing
a strong preference in talking with and listening to other students (3.53). For one
plausible reason, interaction helps learners develop language learning and social skills. In
another way around, students found getting information from planned visit (2.92) as
repulsive in language learning, and so, rendered the lowest score.
As evidence of students preference in language performance assessment, students
preferred to be evaluated by seeing if they can use the language they have learned in real-
life situations (3.68) rather than by being assessed through a written task set by their
teachers (3.65).


91
On top of teachers assumptions on how students prefer to learn a language,
teachers believed that students working style was still in the interest of communicative
approach. Their beliefs in students ways of learning, vocabulary learning, error
correction, media preference and assessment of language performance were consistently
viewed in some occasions. It can be gleaned from the results that incongruency exists
between students and teachers response in carrying out language learning activities.
From the foregoing descriptive analysis of the paper, the level of students
speaking and writing abilities has also been reckoned. Thus, the actual circumstance for
real language use both spoken and written while utilizing performance assessment for
language students task analytic rubric in assessing students responses has illustrated the
following simplifications:
Upon examining students speaking ability level, task completion (2.53) and
comprehensibility (2.54) had met the expectations. However, students almost met
expectations in four analytic components of speaking: pronunciation (2.50), vocabulary
(2.37) language control (2.29) and fluency (2.22) which calibrate students weakness and
areas in need of improvement.
On the same vein, the results substantiated in students writing ability level
acknowledged that students met expectations in five analytic components namely: task
completion (2.76), comprehensibility (2.75), level of discourse (2.52), vocabulary (2.53)
and mechanics (2.59), while evidence under language control (2.45), students almost met
expectations as yielded, hence, requires focal point of attention.
With regard to drawing relationship between students language learning style
preferences and their level of speaking and writing abilities, the result maintains that


92
language performance assessment generally determines the level of students speaking
and writing abilities among seven (7) language learning style classes. This was
manifested on the basis of Pearson product-moment correlation, posing r = .305 with
0.002 significance at 0.01 level 2-tailed.
With respect to the entire pooled samples and by adopting multiple regression
analysis, assessment of language performance was predicted to prompt a greater
influence as proven by (.305) beta weight and (p<0.002) significance, positively related
to the likelihood of students in demonstrating their abilities in speaking and writing,
therefore, such variable hinted to be acknowledged in language learning and teaching.

Conclusions


By examining different interests that recount students language learning style
preferences, the researcher underscores several of its dimensions that beget essential
bearing in second language teaching and learning.
Learning styles are adaptable, learning preferences can be identified and modified
and unconscious or subconscious learning styles can become conscious learning
strategies while exposing students to the concept of learning styles. Effective language
teaching and learning is only achieved when teachers are aware of their learners needs,
capabilities, potentials, and preferences in meeting these needs.
Students working style preferences signals to language teachers that students feel
more comfortable, productive and relaxed by working in pairs and in small groups where
their voices would be heard, views listened to and valued.


93
Listening reaches students to the fullest potential in ways of language learning. It
gives them the complete attention to demonstrate interest in learning. Providing
numerous opportunities in developing students listening skill make them actively engage
in language learning process.
Although the use of translation in learning a second language is much maligned in
a communicative language teaching, translation helped students in vocabulary learning
and facilitated them to comprehend, remember, and produce the target language.
The way error correction is done is much more important than the error itself. The
perception of error correction made later, in private is of due essence among the
students. Private moment in giving them feedback increases their chance to a more active
engagement in the language learning process and experience.
Multimedia have a sort of effect on students interests in language learning and
provides them content stimulation and interactivity. Maintaining realistic applications of
these technological platforms in second language learning promotes desirable
expectations that concern on language learning and acquisition.
Students learning activities were more motivated in the disciplines of talking
with and listening to other students. Real opportunities to convey information, talk in
groups and expression of ideas and response to a variety of situations and texts proved
very helpful to second language learning.
One real challenge facing the students in language performance assessment is
being gauged if they can use language they have learned in a real life situation.
Implementing and perfecting assessment strategies that truly mirror language plausible in


94
their very own lives give them a boost to perform better in language learning and
acquisition.
As to the students level of speaking ability, the scores revealed that task
completion and comprehensibility of the students responses met the expectations while
students pronunciation, vocabulary, language control, and fluency had not systematically
met the expectations under the rubrics set.
On the other hand, students writing ability level resulted to better scores in terms
of task completion, comprehensibility, level of discourse, vocabulary and mechanics
where expectations had been met, utilizing the same kind of rubric classifications. Based
on observations, it was further maintained that students resembled the same expectancy
as to their speaking ability in operating language control.
In testing the relationship between students language learning style preferences
and their level of language performance in English, language performance assessment
was statistically proven significant out of other seven (7) predictor variables. Thus, the
indication rejects hypothesis 1, except language learning style classes such as working
styles, ways of learning, vocabulary learning, error correction, media preference and
learning activities, which had provided no significant relationship on the level of
students language performance in English.
In the final analysis, multiple regression empirically validated language
performance assessment to have a greater influence on the level of students language
performance in English. In this response, hypothesis 2 is rejected except language
learning style classes namely: working styles, ways of learning, vocabulary learning,


95
error correction, media preference and learning activities, which were found no
significant influence on the level of students language performance in English.

Recommendations

Teachers and students involved in identifying and using information on learning
styles should proceed with caution and be aware that no single diagnostic instrument can
solve all learning problems and or performance. Primary recommendations arising from
the study and several instances related to language learning styles preferences which need
further research and analysis are hereby presented.
First and foremost, the sound response to students need in language learning is to
identify the best way(s) through which they can learn the language more fruitfully and
practically. Knowledge of ones learning style may be beneficial in a way that learners
will now be aware of his or her strengths and weaknesses in terms of learning
experiences. Therefore, future learning may be enriched if the learners maintain their
strengths and improve on their weaknesses. Aside from that, this process will improve
ones self esteem because now the students will feel more comfortable and prepared to
take on the learning challenge, and hereafter, this gives students the confidence needed to
achieve their goals.
In the same manner, teachers should help students discover their own learning
preferences and provide constructive feedback about the advantages and disadvantages of
various styles. Similarly, teachers should respect the learners present preferences and
encourage their development, while at the same time creating opportunities for students
to try different ways of learning.


96
Additionally, it has been observed that students preferences in language learning
do indeed correspond with those of teachers in many instances. The results obtained at
this juncture call for a step forward towards teacher-student cooperation in designing
syllabuses, doing weekly course planning and classroom management. It is in this respect
that teachers can meet the range of every learners need in a second language classroom
which will provide him/her an opportunity to have a positive experience and interest in
developing language proficiency.
Equally, materials and syllabus designers can now have an initial identification
which activities are most likely to meet with students approval and areas of language
which demand for immediate attention and must be given appropriate instructional
programs. Hence, the pivotal role of the students in the actual processes of materials and
syllabus design must not be ignored.
In improving students speaking ability, it is essential that they are provided with
planned opportunities for speaking in a range of contexts to different audiences with
different levels of formality and for different purposes. Along with these attempts in
promoting the speaking skill, language teachers should make advances on the
competence of every component involves in speaking. Likewise, teachers should also
recognize the importance of language use and take the responsibility of students
language practice.
For students to meet the expectations in writing, instruction should follow the
product or the process approach. It is in this approach where the teachers and the
students attention are focused on how well a particular learner completed compositions
that represent the skills and rules he or she has been taught. Harnessing them with


97
grammar lessons essentially to meet the requirements in improving their knowledge in
operating language control should also be the foremost agendum in language teaching.
Since there was a concern on language performance assessment as potential
predictor variable on the level of students speaking and writing abilities, language
teachers must substantiate measurable assessment that will directly and adequately
inform the particular kind and quality of language learners they are being paid attention
to, in second language teaching and learning.
Lastly, although the results of descriptive analysis have shown the overall patterns
of students language learning style preferences and so their level of speaking and writing
abilities, this study could not completely articulate about the sources of these
respondents preferences and what had caused them to demonstrate such learning style
preferences. Further research projects may attempt to replicate this study and assess the
accuracy of students language learning style preferences through a series of classroom
observation and testing, while students exposure to differentiated task and learning be
intensified so the intended abilities be drawn out with precision.

















98
BIBLIOGRAPHY



ABUSEILEEK, S. 2007. Computer assisted language learning (CALL) in Chinese
English learning. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from
www.reportessay.english.com

ANDREW, Z. 2005. A study of student interaction and collaboration in the virtual high
school. A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning. Retrieved July 12,
2009, from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/

ANON. 1999. Texas education agency. Summary report group performance. All Students
Grade 08. Retrieved April, 21, 1999 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/results/summary/sum99

ANON. 1999. New Jersey world languages curriculum framework. New Jersey State
department of education. Trenton, New Jersey. USA.

ANON. 1999. ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners American council on the
teaching of foreign languages. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL.

ASTORGA, M. 1999. The text-image interaction and second language learning.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,

BADA, E. and O. ZUHAL. 2000. Students language learning preferences. Teaching
English as a second language or foreign language. Cukuruva University.
Turkey. Retrieved June 6, 2008 from www.writing-berkeley.edu/TESL-
EJ/index/html
BANNER, G. and S. RAYNER. 2001. Learning language and learning style: principles,
process and practice. Assessment research unit. University of Birmingham.
BARKHUIZEN, G. 1998. Discovering learners perceptions of ESL classroom
teaching/learning in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85-108.
Retrieved June 29, 2008 from http://www.finchpark.com/afe/d.htm.
BLAKE, R. 2008. Technology, multimedia, and second language learning. University
of California, Davis. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from
www.mhhe.com.socscience/passport
BLOCK, D. 1996. Window on the classroom: Classroom events viewed from different
angles. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), voices from the language classroom:
Qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.



99
BRINDLEY, G. 1984. Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant
education program. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.

BRINDLEY, G. 1989. The Role of needs analysis in adult ESL program design. In
R.K.Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

BRINTON, D. 1997. The use of media in language teaching. In M. Celcia-Murcia
(2001), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Dewey Publishing
Services: NY.

BRUMFIT, C. 1995. Language education in the national curriculum. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell

CELCE-MURCIA, M. 2001. Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.).
Dewey Publishing Services: NY.

CHAVEZ, R. 1990. The development of story writing within an IBM Writing to Read
program lab among language minority students: Preliminary findings of a
naturalistic study. Computers in the Schools
CHUN, D. 1998. Using computer-assisted class discussion to facilitate the acquisition of
interactive competence. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from www.mhhe/socscience.com
COHEN, A. 1995. Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues.
Washington, D.C.

COHEN, A. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Essex, U.K.:
Longman.

CORDER, S. 1977. Language teaching and learning: A social encounter. In Brown,
Yorio, and Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77. Washington, D.C.: TESOL. Retrieved
July 15, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/.

CORRELI, L. 2006. Enhance your creative writing abilities. Retrieved July 15, 2009
from http://www.CustomResearchPapers.us/

CROWDER, R. and R. WAGNER. 1992. The psychology of reading, 2nd edition.
New York: Oxford University Press
CUMMINS, J. 1998. e-Lective language learning: Design of a computer-assisted text-
based ESL/EFL learning system. TESOL Journal, Spring: 18-21. Retrieved July
19, 2009 from www.mhhe/socscience.com




100
CUSING, W., H. BOLDT, and M. VALSECCHI. 2003. Effects of task and rater
background on the evaluation of ESL student writing: A pilot study. TESOL
Quarterly. Retrieved July 13, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-
2/learning.htm

DAVIS-KALUGIN, D. 2005. The importance of listening skills for your preschool
childs learning and development. Davis Centers, Inc. Retrieved July3, 2009 from
http://www.eye2theworld.net//

DALE, E. 1999. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, 3rd Ed. New York, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

DARDER, A. 1993. How does the culture of the teacher shape the classroom
experience of Latino students?: The unexamined question in critical
pedagogy. In S. W. Rothstein (Ed.), Handbook of schooling in urban
America. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

DEKEYSER, R. 2007. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved June 15, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/.

DICKER, C. 2004. Learning styles and language education. Office of English
language programs. Ankara. Turkey. Retrieved August 6, 2009 from
http://ankara.usembassy.gov

ELLIS, R. 2005. Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3).
Retrieved June 20, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/.

EHRMAN, M. and R. OXFORD. 2000. Adult language learning styles and strategies in
an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal

EMMERT, R. 1994. A study of student interaction and collaboration in the virtual high
school. a synthesis of new research on k-12 online learning, p. 49-56. Retrieved
April 17, 2008 from http://www.ncrel.org/tech/synthesis/.

FARRELL, T. 2006. Succeeding with English language learners: A guide for beginning
teachers. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

FELDER, R. 1996. Matters of styles. ASEE Prism. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-Prism.htm.

FELDER. R and E. HENRIQUEZ. 1995. Learning and teaching styles in foreign and
second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28, No. 1.

FELDER, R. and L. SILVERMAN. 1995. Learning and teaching styles in engineering
education. Engineering Education.


101
FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM OF STUDIES, FAIRFAX COUNTRY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS PALS. 2004. Performance assessment for language students.
Retrieved January 6, 2009 from
www.fcps.edu/DIS/OHSICS/forlang/PALS/improve.com

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FRAMEWORKS NEBRASKA. 1996. Challenge for a new
era: Nebraska K-12. Department of education. USA

GARCIA, G. 1991. Factors influencing the English reading test performance of
Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371392.
GENISHI, C. and A. DYSON. 1984. Language assessment in the early years. Language
and learning for human service professions monograph series. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Company.
GOATLEY, V., C. BROCK and T. RAPHAEL. 1995. Diverse learners participating in
regular education book clubs. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 352 380.

GODINA, H. 1998. Mexican-American high-school students and the role of literacy
across homeschoolcommunity settings. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International

GUNDERSON, B. and D. JOHNSON. 1990. Building positive attitudes by using
cooperative learning groups. Foreign Language Annals

HALL, D. and A. HEWINGS. 2001. Innovative in English language testing: A reader.
Teaching English Worldwide. Routledge, London
HOWARTH, H. 2006. Types of language-learning tasks that result in the most
negotiation and interaction among students. Retrieved June 12, 2009 from
www.leaptki.org.nz
HUDELSON, S. 1988. Write on: children writing in ESL. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics Washington DC. Retrieved April 23, 2009 from
www.eric_identifier_digest.com

HUDELSON, S. 1986. Childrens writing in ESL: What weve learned, what were
learning. In P. Rigg and D.S. Enright (Eds.), Children and ESL: Integrating
Perspectives. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to speakers of other
languages.

JACOB, E., and B. MATTSON. 1997. Using cooperative learning with language
minority students: a report from the field. Washington: Center for Language
Education and Research (CLEAR) Project, Center for Applied Linguistics.



102
JAASKELAINEN, R. 1999. Tapping the process: an explorative study of cognitive and
effective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu
Publications in Humanities. Retrieved November 11, 2008 from
http://www.hum.expertise.workshop.

JANULEVICIENE, V. and G. KAVALIAUSKIENE. 2002. Promoting the fifth skill in
teaching ESP in English for specific purposes. World Web-Based Journal Vol. 1,
Issue 2, July 2002. Retrieved June 8, 2008 from <http://www.esp-world.info>
JASMANSYAH, U. 2009. Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. New York:
Signet. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from www.mhhe/socscience.com
JOHNSON, D., R. JOHNSON, and R. SMITH. 1991. Cooperative learning:
increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
JONES, R. 2009. What is summarizing? A selective underlining to a selection. Pat
Widdowson of Surry County Schools in North Carolina. Retrieved July 2, 2009
from www.readingquest.com/org/pdf
JOYCE, D. 1997. Strategies for responding to the writing of ESL students. San Diego,
CA: San Diego State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
421014)

JUNG, C. 1971. Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

KAVALIAUSKIENE, G. 2003. English for specific purposes: Learners preferences and
attitudes. Journal of Language and Learning Vol. 1, No. 1.

KENNING, M. 2001. Language learning interests at university. Language Learning
Journal 23, Summer.

KLUGE, D. and D. TAYLOR. 2009. Boosting speaking fluency through partner taping.
The Internet TESL Journal. Kinjo Gakuin University, Nagoya Japan.
Retrieved July 15, 2009 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Schneider-
PairTaping.html

KOLB, D. 1994. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

LAWRENCE, G. 1993. People types and tiger stripes: a practical guide to learning styles,
3rd edition. Gainesville, Fl: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

LEAVER, B. 1996. Hemisphericity of the brain and foreign language teaching. Folio
Slavica


103
LEWIN, L. and J. SHOEMAKER. 1998. Great performances: creating classroom- based
assessment tasks. Association for supervision and curriculum development.
LYSTER, R. and L. RANTA. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation
of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. ACIE Newsletter Volume 1 Number 3 May 1998 The Bridge:
From Research to Practice

MARTIN, M. 1998. Speech recoding in silent reading. Memory and Cognition

MEANS, B. and K. OLSON. 1994. The link between technology and authentic
Learning. Educational Leadership

MOODY, R. 1998. Personality preferences and foreign language learning. The modern
language journal.

MYERS, M. 1980. A procedure for writing assessment. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193 676).

MYERS, B. and M. MCCAULLEY. 1995. Manual: A guide to the development and
use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

NUNAN, D. and G. LAMB. 1996. The self-directed teacher. Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved June 15, 2008 from http://www.esp-world.info.

NUNAN, D. 1989. Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme
implementation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ORDUDARI, M. 2007. Translation procedures, strategies and methods. Linguistic and
cultural issues in literary translation. Retrieved November 17, 2008 from
http://accurapid.com/journal/29liter.htm

OXFORD, R. 2000. Missing link: evidence from research on language learning styles
and strategies, in Georgetown University round table on languages and
linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

OXFORD, R. 2003. Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest. Washington,
D.C.

OXFORD, R. and M. EHRMAN. 1995. Adults language learning strategies in an
intensive foreign language program in the United States. Washington D.C.



104
OXFORD, R., M. EHRMAN and R. LAVINE. 1991. Style wars: Teacher-student style
conflicts in the language college foreign language programs. Boston: Heinle and
Heinle.
OXFORD, R. and D. CROOKALL. 1993. Research on language learning strategies:
methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-
419.
PADRN, Y., S. KNIGHT and H. WAXMAN. 1986. Analyzing bilingual and
monolingual students perceptions of their reading strategies. The reading
teacher.

PIERCE, L. and M. OMALLEY. 1992. Performance and portfolio assessment for
language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, Number
9, Spring 1992.

PIERSON, C. 2004. Perspective on journal writing for the ESL/EFL classroom. VA
TESOL Inc. Retrieved July 12, 2009 from www.cetc.chair.com
PROCTOR, S. and M. HARVEY. 2003. Why having a strong vocabulary is so
important? A Retrieved April 3, 2009 from
http://www.tradulex.org/Actes2000/harvey.pdf
QIQI, U. 2008. The importance of computer assisted language
learning in China. Retrieved July 6, 2009 from
www.reportessay.com

RAYNER, S. and R. RIDING, 1997. Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and
learning styles. Educational Psychology

REID, J. 1995. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle Publishers.

REID, J. 1995. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-
103. Retrieved June 15, 2008 from http://www.finchpark.com/afe/d.htm.

REID, J. 1987. The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 21/1,
87-1987111. Retrieved August 20, 2008 from
http://www.finchpark.com/afe/d.htm.
REPPEN, R. 1994. Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional
perspective. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation.
RIAZI, A. 2007. Language learning style preferences: a students case study of Shiraz
EFL Institutes. Shiraz University, Iran. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly


105
March 2007 Volume 9, Issue 1. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from www.asianefl-
journal.com/pdf
RIGG, P. and D. ENRIGHT. 1986. Children and ESL: Integrating perspectives.
Washington, DC: Teachers of English to speakers of other languages.
ROST, J. 1994. What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly
SCHMECK, R. 1998. Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.

SMITH, L. and J. RENZULLI. 2004. Learning style preferences: a practical approach for
classroom teachers. Theory into practice

SPRATT, M. 2003. How good are we at knowing what learners like? system, 27, 141-
155. Stapa, S. H. ESP students learning preferences: Are the teachers aware?
Retrieved August 19, 2008 from http://www.Esp-world.Info/rticles/stapa.htm.

STAPA, S. 2003. ESP students learning preferences: Are the teachers aware?
Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.Esp-
world.Info/rticles/stapa.htm.

SVINICKI, M. 2008. Using small groups to promote learning center for teaching
effectiveness. University of Texas at Austin
SWAFFAR, J. 1998. Networking language learning: Introduction. In Swaffar et al. (eds.).
Retrieved June 13, 2009 from www.mhhe/socscience.com
SWISHER, K. 1994. The journal of educational issues of language minority
students. American Indian learning styles survey: an assessment of teachers
knowledge. Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. Retrieved January 7,
2009 from www.ncela.gwu.edu.com
TEDICK, D. 1998. Proficiency-oriented language instruction and assessment: a
curriculum handbook for teachers. Center for advanced research on education
University of Minnesota. USA.
TANG, G. 1992. The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on
ESLreading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
THITTHONGKAM, T. 2008. A study of essay writing abilities in English to answer an
essay question of the fourth year undergraduate of English major students in
private tertiary education institutions, Thailand. Sripatum University, Thailand.
Retrieved July 7, 2009 from www.thesisabstract.com/articles

URZUA, C. 1987. You stopped too soon: Second language children composing and
revising. TESOL Quarterly.


106

VALDEZ-PIERCE, L and J. OMALLEY. 1992. Performance and portfolio assessment
for language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series,
Number 9, Spring. Retrieved February 8, 2009 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu.
WARSCHAUER, M. 1995. Comparing face to face and electronic discussion in the
second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13(2&3): 7-26. Retrieved July 19,
2009 from www.mhhe/socscience.com
WARSCHAUER, M. 1997. Computer-mediated collaborative learning. Modern
Language Journal. 81(4): 470-481. Retrieved July 19, 2009 from
www.mhhe/socscience.com
WILLIAMS, M. and R. BURDEN. 2004. Psychology for language teachers: A social
constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WINTERGERST, A., A. DECAPUA and A. MARILYN 2003. Conceptualizing learning
style modalities for ESL/EFL students. System, 31, 85-106. Asian EFL Journal,
Volume 9, Number 1. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/.

WOLFE-QUINTERO, K., I. SHUNJI and K. HAE-YOUNG. 1998. Second
language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and
development. Technical Report #17. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching
and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

WORLD LANGUAGES PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE. 2000.
World languages assessment tasks world languages resources for k-12 teachers
and parents. Retrieved July 13, 2009 from www.globalteaching/learning.com

THE MINNESOTA LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS (MLPA) 2000.
Developing speaking and writing tasks for second language assessment..
Minnesota, USA. Retrieved January 9, 2009 from <http://carla.acad.umn.edu>
THOMPSON, I. and J. RUBIN. 1993. Improving listening comprehension in Russian.
Washington, DC: Department of Education, International Research and Studies
Program.
UR, A. 1996. On taking tests: what the students report. Language testing. Retrieved April
23, 2009 from www.thevlbdgroup.com

WAXMAN, H. 2004. Effective teaching practices for English language learners a digest
of research from the laboratory for student success no. 705. University of
Houston; & Kip Tellez, University of California, Santa Cruz




107





Appendix A. Letter to the School Directress


Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY
University Town, Musuan, Bukidnon

GRADUATE SCHOOL


4 June 2009


SR. FELISA P. BATUSIN, MCM
School Directress
San Agustin Institute of Technology
Valencia City

Thru: MS. WILDA P. TRIAMBULO
Principal High School Department


Dear Sr. Batusin:

I am a student of Central Mindanao University School of Graduate Studies leading to the degree
of Master of Arts in Language Education major in English and currently working on my graduate
thesis entitled Students Language Learning Style Preferences and their Language Performance
in English.
With this regard, I respectfully seek your permission to administer my questionnaire among your
English/Subject Teachers and Senior High Students on Language Learning Style Preferences.
Rest assured that the data gathered as scores shall be used exclusively to my research and be kept
with utmost confidentiality.
I would appreciate your consent. Please indicate your approval by signing where indicated below
and return this letter in the enclosed envelope at your earliest convenience.

God bless you!


Yours sincerely,


GART R. SOLATORIO
Recommending Approval:



108

LORETO N. ROMERO, Ph.D.
Thesis Adviser
Signed: ______________________
Date: ________________________
Appendix B. Letter to the Teacher-respondents


Republic of the Philippines
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY
University Town, Musuan, Bukidnon

GRADUATE SCHOOL



4 June 2009


Dear Respondents:


Greetings of Peace!

The undersigned is a graduate student leading to the degree of Master of Arts in
Language Education major in English of Central Mindanao University. Currently, he is
working on his graduate thesis entitled Students Language Learning Style Preferences and
their Language Performance in English.
In line with this regard, you are purposively selected as teacher-respondent on the said
study. May I ask you to answer the attached questionnaire. Please do not leave any item
unanswered. This is not a test of your ability and consistency of your work. Rest assured
of your answers will be dealt with utmost confidentiality on this paper.
Let me count of your unwavering support in this endeavor. Thank you!


Yours sincerely,


GART R. SOLATORIO
Researcher








109





Appendix C. Test Questionnaires Students Version

HOW DO YOU LIKE LEARNING?

Name : _______________________________________
Age : ____________
1 Male
2 Female

INSTRUCTIONS. Please encircle the letter that best describes you.
5 ALWAYS; 4 USUALLY; 3 SOMETIMES; 2 NOT OFTEN; 1 NEVER
A. In class do you like learning
1. individually? 5 4 3 2 1
2. in pairs? 5 4 3 2 1
3. in small groups? 5 4 3 2 1
4. in one large group? 5 4 3 2 1
5. other (specify please) _____________________

B. Do you like learning
1. by listening? 5 4 3 2 1
2. by reading? 5 4 3 2 1
3. by copying from the board? 5 4 3 2 1
4. by listening and taking notes? 5 4 3 2 1
5. by reading and making notes? 5 4 3 2 1
6. by repeating what you hear? 5 4 3 2 1
7. by making summaries? 5 4 3 2 1
8. other (specify please) _____________________

C. When learning new vocabulary, do you like learning
1. by using new words in a sentence 5 4 3 2 1
2. by thinking of relationships between
known and new 5 4 3 2 1
3. by saying or writing words several
times 5 4 3 2 1
4. by avoiding verbatim translation 5 4 3 2 1
5. by translating from English 5 4 3 2 1
6. by translating into English 5 4 3 2 1
7. by guessing the unknown 5 4 3 2 1
8. by reading without looking up words 5 4 3 2 1


110
9. other (specify please) _____________________




D. When you speak do want to be corrected
1. immediately, in front of everyone? 5 4 3 2 1
2. later, at the end of the activity,
in front of everyone? 5 4 3 2 1
3. later, in private? 5 4 3 2 1
4. other (specify please) _____________________

E. Do you like learning from
1. television/video/films/computer? 5 4 3 2 1
2. radio? 5 4 3 2 1
3. tapes/cassettes? 5 4 3 2 1
4. written material? 5 4 3 2 1
5. the blackboard? 5 4 3 2 1
6. pictures/posters? 5 4 3 2 1
7. other (specify please) _____________________

F. Do you do the following in your class?
1. role play 5 4 3 2 1
2. language games 5 4 3 2 1
3. songs 5 4 3 2 1
4. talking with and listening
to other students 5 4 3 2 1
5. memorizing conversations/dialogues 5 4 3 2 1
6. dictation 5 4 3 2 1
7. getting information from guest speakers 5 4 3 2 1
8. getting information from planned visits 5 4 3 2 1
9. writing a learning diary/journal 5 4 3 2 1
10. writing grammar exercises for peers 5 4 3 2 1
If so, RANK the next five things you find most useful.

I. How do you like to find out how much your English is improving?
1. by written tasks set by the teacher? 5 4 3 2 1
2. by seeing if you can use the language
you have learned in real-life
situations 5 4 3 2 1
3. other (specify please) _____________________

Range: 4.51 5.00 Always
3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes
1.51 2.50 Not Often


111
1.00 1.50 Never




Appendix D. Test Questionnaires Teachers Version

HOW DO YOUR STUDENTS LIKE LEARNING?

Name : _______________________________________
Age : ____________
1 Male
2 Female

INSTRUCTIONS. Please encircle the letter that best describes your students in class.
5 ALWAYS; 4 USUALLY; 3 SOMETIMES; 2 NOT OFTEN; 1 NEVER
A. In class do your students like learning
1. individually? 5 4 3 2 1
2. in pairs? 5 4 3 2 1
3. in small groups? 5 4 3 2 1
4. in one large group? 5 4 3 2 1
5. other (specify please) _____________________

B. Do they like learning
1. by listening? 5 4 3 2 1
2. by reading? 5 4 3 2 1
3. by copying from the board? 5 4 3 2 1
4. by listening and taking notes? 5 4 3 2 1
5. by reading and making notes? 5 4 3 2 1
6. by repeating what you hear? 5 4 3 2 1
7. by making summaries? 5 4 3 2 1
8. other (specify please) _____________________

C. When learning new vocabulary, do they like learning
1. by using new words in a sentence 5 4 3 2 1
2. by thinking of relationships between
known and new 5 4 3 2 1
3. by saying or writing words several
times 5 4 3 2 1
4. by avoiding verbatim translation 5 4 3 2 1
5. by translating from English 5 4 3 2 1
6. by translating into English 5 4 3 2 1
7. by guessing the unknown 5 4 3 2 1
8. by reading without looking up words 5 4 3 2 1


112
9. other (specify please) _____________________




D. When they speak do they want to be corrected
1. immediately, in front of everyone? 5 4 3 2 1
2. later, at the end of the activity,
in front of everyone? 5 4 3 2 1
3. later, in private? 5 4 3 2 1
4. other (specify please) _____________________

E. Do they like learning from
1. television/video/films/computer? 5 4 3 2 1
2. radio? 5 4 3 2 1
3. tapes/cassettes? 5 4 3 2 1
4. written material? 5 4 3 2 1
5. the blackboard? 5 4 3 2 1
6. pictures/posters? 5 4 3 2 1
7. other (specify please) _____________________

F. Do you do the following in your class?
1. role play 5 4 3 2 1
2. language games 5 4 3 2 1
3. songs 5 4 3 2 1
4. talking with and listening
to other students 5 4 3 2 1
5. memorizing conversations/dialogues 5 4 3 2 1
6. dictation 5 4 3 2 1
7. getting information from guest speakers 5 4 3 2 1
8. getting information from planned visits 5 4 3 2 1
9. writing a learning diary/journal 5 4 3 2 1
10. writing grammar exercises for peers 5 4 3 2 1
If so, RANK the next five things you find most useful.

J. How do you think students to find out how much their English is improving?
1. by written tasks set by the teacher? 5 4 3 2 1
2. by seeing if you can use the language
you have learned in real-life
situations 5 4 3 2 1
3. other (specify please) _____________________

Range: 4.51 5.00 Always
3.51 4.50 Usually
2.51 3.50 Sometimes
1.51 2.50 Not Often


113
1.00 1.50 Never




Appendix E. Speaking Task Analytic Rubric

Task Completion
1 Minimal completion of the task and/or responses frequently inappropriate.
2 Partial completion of the task; responses frequently appropriate yet
undeveloped.
3 Completion of the task; responses appropriate and adequately developed.
4 Superior completion of the task; responses appropriate and with elaboration.

Comprehensibility
1 Responses barely comprehensible.
2 Responses mostly comprehensible, requiring interpretation on the part of the
listener.
3 Responses comprehensible, requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the
listener.
4 Responses readily comprehensible, requiring no interpretation on the part of
the listener.

Fluency
1 Speech halting and uneven with long pauses and/or incomplete thoughts.
2 Speech choppy and/or slow with frequent pauses; few or no incomplete
thoughts.
3 Some hesitation but manages to continue and complete thoughts.
4 Speech continuous with few pauses or stumbling.

Pronunciation
1 Frequently interferes with communication.
2 Occasionally interferes with communication.
3 Does not interfere with communication.
4 Enhances communication.

Vocabulary
1 Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary.
2 Somewhat inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary.
3 Adequate and accurate use of vocabulary.
4 Rich use of vocabulary.

Language Control
1 Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of basic language structures.
2 Emerging use of basic language structures.
3 Emerging control of basic language structures.


114
4 Control of basic language structures.




Appendix F. Writing Task Analytic Rubric

Task Completion
1 Minimal completion of the task and/or content frequently inappropriate.
2 Partial completion of the task; content mostly appropriate; ideas undeveloped.
3 Completion of the task; content appropriate; ideas adequately developed.
4 Superior completion of the task; content appropriate; ideas well developed and
well organized.

Comprehensibility
1 Text barely comprehensible.
2 Text mostly comprehensible, requiring interpretation on the part of the reader.
3 Text comprehensible, requiring minimal interpretation on the part of the
reader.
4 Text readily comprehensible, requiring interpretation on the part of the reader.

Level of Discourse
1 Attempted use of complete sentences; no or almost no cohesive device.
2 Predominant use of complete yet repetitive sentences; no or almost no
cohesive devices.
3 Emerging variety of complete sentences and some cohesive devices.
4 Variety of complete sentences and of cohesive devices.

Vocabulary
1 Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary.
2 Somewhat inadequate and/or inaccurate use of vocabulary.
3 Adequate and accurate use of vocabulary.
4 Rich use of vocabulary.

Language Control
1 Inadequate and/or inaccurate use of basic language structures.
2 Emerging use of basic language structures.
3 Emerging control of basic language structures.
4 Control of basic language structures.

Mechanics
1 Inaccurate spelling, use of diacritical marks, punctuation and/or capitalization.
2 Somewhat inaccurate spelling, use of diacritical marks, punctuation and or
capitalization.
3 Mostly accurate spelling, use of diacritical marks, punctuation and or
capitalization.


115
4 Few or no errors in spelling, use of diacritical marks, punctuation and or
capitalization.



Appendix G. Tasks Holistic Rubric Scoring Sheet


SPEAKING TASK HOLISTIC RUBRIC

Name: _________________________________ Year and Section: _________________
Speaking Task No. ______ Topic: _________________________________________

DESCRIPTORS LEVEL
TOTAL
Task Completion 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Comprehensibility 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Fluency 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Pronunciation 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Vocabulary 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Language Control 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

Raw Score: ______/ 24
Converted % Score: ______

Range: 54-73% Does Not Meet Expectations 74-83% Almost Meets Expectations
84-93% Meets Expectations 94-100% Exceeds Expectations


WRITING TASK HOLISTIC RUBRIC

Name: _________________________________ Year and Section: _________________
Writing Task No. ______ Topic: _________________________________________

DESCRIPTORS LEVEL
TOTAL
Task Completion 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Comprehensibility 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Level of Discourse 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Vocabulary 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Language Control 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Mechanics 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

Raw Score: ______/ 24
Converted % Score: ______

Range: 54-73% Does Not Meet Expectations 74-83% Almost Meets Expectations


116
84-93% Meets Expectations 94-100% Exceeds Expectations




Appendix H. Conversion Chart



Conversion Chart
24.0 100 16.0 82.7 8.0 65.3
23.5 98.9 15.5 81.6 7.5 64.2
23.0 97.8 15.0 80.5 7.0 63.2
22.5 96.8 14.5 79.4 6.5 62.1
22.0 95.7 14.0 78.3 6.0 61.0
21.5 94.6 13.5 77.2 5.5 59.9
21.0 93.5 13.0 76.2 5.0 58.8
20.5 92.4 12.5 75.1 4.5 57.8
20.0 91.3 12.0 74.0 4.0 56.7
19.5 90.2 11.5 72.9 3.5 55.6
19.0 89.2 11.0 71.8 3.0 54.5
18.5 88.1 10.5 70.8 2.5 53.4
18.0 87.0 10.0 69.7 2.0 52.3
17.5 85.9 9.5 68.6 1.5 51.2
17.0 84.8 9.0 67.5 1.0 50.2
16.5 83.8 8.5 66.4 0.5 49.1


















117





Appendix H. Conversation Questions for the ESL Classroom

Conversation Questions for the ESL Classroom
1. Do you think teenagers today should show more respect for adults? (teachers,
parents, etc)
2. What do you think about teenagers who dye their hair blue, green, or another
crazy color?
3. Do you think that wearing uniforms to school is a good idea?
4. At what age should teenagers leave home?
5. At what age did you leave home?
6. What would you do if your teenage son or daughter got a tattoo?
7. What would you do if your teenage son or daughter shaved his or her head?
8. How do you feel about swearing? Does it matter if teenagers sometimes use bad
language?
9. What do you think about rock videos today?
10. What do you think parents can do to help teenagers avoid depression?
11. Do you believe in anti-depression drugs?
12. Did you have a good relationship with your parents? Why or why not?
13. Do you think it's a good idea to give teenagers a lot of freedom? (example: come
home when you like)
14. Do teenagers in our country have problems with drugs or alcohol?


118
15. What can you do to keep your teenager away from drugs and alcohol?
16. Is teenage suicide a problem?
17. What is the most important thing a parent can do for a teenager?
18. Why do you think some teenagers do good things and others (in the same family
often) do bad things?
19. At what age should a teenage girl have her first serious boyfriend? boys?
20. How old were you when you had your first serious relationship?
21. What can society do to help teenagers who have problems at home?
22. Are there more pregnant teenage girls in here in town than in any other places?
Why?
23. What is the best advice you could give to a teenager growing up in this
generation?
24. Do you think that advertising plays an important role in how teenagers think?
25. Should teenagers work? Why or why not?
26. Did you work when you were a teenager?
27. If you could be a teenager again, would you do anything differently?
28. Do you think it is better to raise teenagers in the city, a small town, or the
country?
29. What is it like to be a teenager in this society?
30. Would you rather be a child, teenager or an adult? Why?
31. What are the advantages of being a child, a teenager and an adult? What are the
disadvantages?
32. If you could meet any teenager in the world, who would it be?


119
33. At what age should teenagers be allowed to leave school?
34. At what age should teenagers be allowed to smoke?
35. At what age should teenagers be allowed to drink?
36. At what age should teenagers be allowed to drive?
37. At what age should teenagers be allowed to get married?
38. At what age should teenagers be allowed to vote?
39. Do you know any good role models for teenagers? Do you know any teenagers
who don't act like other teens? Why do you think they act differently?
40. What do you/will you remember about being a teenager?
41. Can teens change the world? If yes, how? If not, why not?
42. What's the difference between teenage girls and teenage boys? What causes those
differences?
43. Would you rather be stuck in a bus with children, teens, young adults, adults or
elderly adults? Why?
44. When did you start to be a teen? How did you know that you were a teenager? Do
you still feel like a teen sometimes?
45. What is the difference between the teenagers of 19
th
century and the teenagers of
the 21
st
century?
46. As a teenager, how do you think fashion changed or affected your life?
47. Among the fashion stuff that is prevalent in the world today, which do you think
is the most hideous one?
48. How much freedom should parents give to their teenagers?


120
49. If you were a parent and your teenage child did something wrong, how would you
discipline him/her?
50. What do you think is the greatest problem facing the teenagers of today?
51. How do you think can we eradicate or at least lessen juvenile delinquency?
52. How do media affect the thinking patterns of the teenagers of today?
53. If you could do something differently, which mistake in the past would you not do
and why?
54. As a teenager, what do you think you can contribute to society?
55. How do you respond to criticisms?
56. What emotional problem bothers you very often?
57. Name the greatest person who influenced you?
58. What are the traits that you dislike in a person?
59. How do you say no to a person without offending him/her?
60. What do you want to have for a pet? Why?
61. Comment on this: Loneliness is a growing problem in our society.
62. Define: Happiness is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
63. Is there anything that you would like to open up to the class?
64. Crack to us a corny joke.
65. What are some things you feel irritated with?
66. What do you want to do in your old age?
67. What is the most important possession in your house? Why?
68. Whom do you share personal difficulties with? How about personal joy?
69. If the person is faithful to you, what do you promise to do for him/her?


121
70. Do you believe in superstition?
71. Comment on this: Honesty is the best policy.
72. Define: Perseverance is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
73. What do you often imagine yourself to be?
74. What particular country in the world would you like to see? Why?
75. What is faithfulness in your point of view?
76. What type of adventure do you go for?
77. How do you value yourself?
78. Describe your self?
79. Do you feel yourself impressive?
80. When do you become sentimental?
81. What difficulty has challenged you most?
82. What type of job would you like to be doing?
83. How do you understand wise-spending?
84. Tell us about a specific blessing you received lately?
85. How did your mother help you in your growing-up years?
86. Is being a single an advantage to you? Explain?
87. What would you like to be doing this year?
88. What is your philosophy in life?
89. What are things that you would not tolerate in a friendship?
90. What is the greatest book you ever read? Why?
91. How do you extend courtesy?
92. What is your favorite TV program?


122
93. Who is your favorite TV personality? Why?
94. Tell us about your incident that really terrified you?
95. Do you view love an emotional feeling or a duty?
96. Are you romantic? How?
97. Tell us something about a funny experience.
98. Tell us about your insecurities in life?
99. Tell us about a well-known personality that you admire.
100. Define: Intelligence is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
101. What one thing gives joy to you?
102. Is there anything lacking in your life?
103. What makes a happy home?
104. How do you value money?
105. What is the greatest thing that happened in your life?
106. How do you rate your intelligence: a. above average b. average c. below
average? Why?
107. Tell us about an embarrassing experience.
108. What do you know about Jesus Christ?
109. What is the happiest moment in your life?
110. Do you consider yourself conservative or modern?
111. What is your favorite room in the house?
112. What makes you inspired to do something?
113. Name the greatest person who influenced you?
114. What changes would like to see in your life?


123
115. Comment on this: If you cannot find a way out, look up!
116. What are the things that youre afraid in your home? school?
117. What is your favorite time if the day?
118. What are some thoughts that you would like to share with a friend?
119. What are things that you would like to achieve in life?
120. When do finances become a worry or burden to you?
121. What do you think are your weaknesses and strengths?
122. What do you do when you feel lonely?
123. What would you like to talk about? People? Events? Ideas?
124. What are the three things you want to see in your married life?
125. How were raised as a child?
126. Tell us about your priority in life?
127. What is your favorite date in the year?
128. Comment on this: A good name is more desirable than great riches?
129. Define: Divorce is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
130. In what instance in your life have you really felt inadequate?
131. What has been the greatest kindness you have shown to another?
132. How does it feel being counseled to by a younger person?
133. If you were born in another time, what would you like to be?
134. Comment on this: It is better to give than to receive.
135. What honest mistake have you committed that turned out to be favorable to
you?
136. Why would you fall out of love to a person?


124
137. Are you contented with the way you look? Why?
138. How do you demonstrate love to a person?
139. Describe yourself as a pupil/student?
140. How do you show your love to God?
141. How do you spend a holiday?
142. Tell us something about your interesting hobby?
143. What is your favorite dish?
144. What good traits do your father and mother have which you see in your
personality?
145. How did you overcome a very difficult situation in school?
146. What is your attitude toward adversity and temptation?
147. What do you daydream mostly about?
148. Thoughts that you would share to help change our countrys situation.
149. Comment on our countrys president.
150. What is you favorite color? What makes you like it?
151. Define: Success is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
152. What is your favorite subject in school?
153. What do you have in life that you feel proud of?
154. How would you describe your father?
155. How do you motivate a person?
156. When do you consider something a luxury?
157. What style of clothing are you most comfortable in?
158. What natural talents or abilities would like to develop?


125
159. So far, what is the greatest accomplishment in your life?
160. What type of music do you like to listen to?
161. What are traits that you dislike in your character?
162. Do you believe in LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT?
163. What are the things that you enjoy doing in your spare time?
164. How do you see it when a person becomes so generous to you?
165. How do you react to people who dislike you?
166. How would you react if a friend provoked you to anger?
167. What changes in your life do you believe have taken place?
168. What sports would you like to indulge in? How does it help you?
169. Is spiritual growth important to you? Why?
170. Tell us about your crushes?
171. Do you consider difficulties a blessing in disguise?
172. What important event in the history of your country