THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING STYLE AND THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AT THE THIRD GRADE OF SOCIAL MAJOR OF DINIYYAH PUTRI LAMPUNG
UMI RIZKILAH
0813042012
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover……………………………………………………………………………………………. i
Table Of contents………………………………………………..................................................ii
CHPATER I Introduction
1.1 Background of the problem………………………………………………..
1.2 Formulation of the problem………………………………….……………
1.3 Objective of the study…………………………….....................................
1.4 Definition of term…………………………………………………………….
CHAPTER II Literature Review
2.1 Concept of learning…….…………………………………………………....
2.2 Concept of learning.…………...…………………………………………….
CHAPTER III Research Method
3.1 Research Design…….…………………………….........................................
3.2 Variable………..…………………………………………………………….
3.3 Population and sample………………………………………………………
3.4 Instrument………………………………………………………………….
3.5 Method of Data analysis…………………………………………………...
CHAPTER IV Result and Discussion
4.1 Result of Research………………………………………………………….
4.2 Discussion…………………………………………………………………….
CHAPTER V Conclusion and Suggestion
5.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………
5.2 Suggestion…………………………………………………………………….
REFRENCES…………………………………………………………………....
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses about background of the problem, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, uses of the research, and definition of term.
1.1 Background of study
People have preferences about how they like to learn which is called their learning style. These sometimes account for their problems in learning using a particular approach such as in a classroom or on the job. This may not be entirely due to their learning style but also due to their previous experience. There are a number of systems for describing learning styles.
Kolb is the inspiration for a large numbers of theorists. For example, Honey and Mumford's model, Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), is directly derived from Kolb's theory. Honey and Mumford (2000) note their debt to Kolb's theory, however, they also note that they produced their own Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) because they found that Kolb's LSI had low face validity with managers. So rather than asking people directly how they learn, as Kolb's LSI does, Honey and Mumford gave them a questionnaire that probes general behavioral tendencies. Their reasoning is most people have never consciously considered how they really learn.
While basically the same as Kolb's model, there are a couple of differences. First, they substitute the terms "reflector" for divergers (reflective observation), "theorist" for assimilators (abstract conceptualization), "pragmatist" for convergers (concrete experience), and "activist" for accommodators (active experimentation). In addition, the new labels have slightly different meanings.
They also postulate that people prefer different methods of learning, depending upon the situation and their experience level, thus they move between the four modes of learning, rather than being dominantly locked into one mode.
Various learning style models provide foundational information for instruction and curriculum design. Various learning style models are used to design instruction. Examples of these models are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Kolb’s learning style model (1984), and Felder-Soloman Learning Style Inventory (Felder, 1996; Kolb, 1984; McCaulley, 1990). Because students learn in different ways, teaching methods should not only vary but also take into consideration these differences. The researcher was interested in obtaining data regarding learning styles and achievement so that recommendations could be provided regarding maximizing student achievement.
A. Formulation of the problem
Based on the background of the problem above, the problems of this research are formulated as follows:
1. Which learning styles postulate that people prefer different methods of learning?
2. What is the relationship of preferred learning style and student achievement?
B. Objective of the Research
In relation to the formulation of the problem, the objectives of this research are as follows:
1. To find out which learning styles are evidenced by student senior high school as measured by the Peter Honey and Mumford?
2. To find out what is the relationship of preferred learning style and achievement as measured by grade obtained
C. Uses of the Research
The uses of this research are as follows:
1. Practically, this research can be used as reference for English teacher at senior high school to know the learning style of the student and the relationship between the learning style and the student’s achievement at the student of DINIYYAH PUTRI LAMPUNG.
2. Theoretically, this research can be used as a contribution to English teacher and other students who are interested in conducting the future research in the same field.
D. Definition of Terms
Ø Learning stylesare defined by Grasha (1996), as “personal qualities that influence a student’s ability to acquire information, to interact with peers and the teacher, and otherwise to participate in learning experiences” (p. 41). Felder (1996) defines learning styles as characteristic strengths and preferences in the manner in which students take in and process information. James and Gardner (1995) define it as the manner in which people process, store and recall what they are attempting to learn. In all definitions, learning styles entail the student’s ability to relate new information along with the environmental factors which allow a student to acquire new knowledge.
Ø Achievementis defined using the student’s level of passing grades in classes
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses about the theories used in this study, such as: concept of learning, concept of learning style.
2.1 Concept of Learning
Learning theory is the basis for understanding how students learn. A review of the literature on learning theories highlights two main areas from which the hypotheses are based: constructivism and social cognition. Constructivist theory builds knowledge based on previously gained information and experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). Social cognitive theory, based on Piaget’s (1972) theory of cognitive development, includes the premise that social interaction is fundamental to the development of cognition.
This section discusses the learning theories which are the basis for the hypotheses in the study and the learning styles which resulted from understanding how students learn. The literature shows that research on the brain; its physiology and functional development are closely related to cognitive theory (Gardner, 1993; Gazzaniga, 1985). Processing information is part of brain function. The biology of the brain and the relation to function and knowledge are closely related. Tanner and Allen (2004) stated From a biological perspective, the brain is the organ of learning, and as such, a learning style is likely to be a complex, emergent interaction of the neurophysiology or an individual’s brain and the unique developmental process that has shaped it through experience and interaction with the environment.(p. 198) A review of the literature reveals two basic schools of thought: (a) that learning can be studied independently of the environment and that it takes place within the individual (Bruner, 1990), and (b) that learning has a connection to the environment and thinking is a result of these interactions (Greeno, 1989). The individual has innate abilities that allow development of thinking and knowledge based on the interactions with the environment. Huit (2003) developed an ecological model for development of cognition that is focused on the interaction of the individual with the environment. As complex systems are studied, the individual’s perceptions are also interlaced with their background and culture, which can be their environment as well (Bush 2003).
Vygotsky’s belief (1978) that studying the process of learning in the environment where learning is taking place, rather than the product, embraces Piaget’s theory that the learning is adaptive and can be either assimilated or accommodated. The process of learning, rather then the product is the emphasis. In essence, the process of learning is an adaptation due to the environmental factors that are present and ever changing. In addition, the learner is actively involved in modifying the learning environment as a part of learning. Using constructivist theory, Huitt (2003) discussed how knowledge is based on previously gained information and or experiences. Supporting this, Barley et al. (2002) explained constructivism as an active process. The active participation of the individual information is used to construct and process the learning. Supporting this, brain-based learning research (Jensen, 1998) shows that the brain is have a social component and that complex learning is enhanced by challenge, that learning is developmental, and that meaning is important.
Huitt (2003) discussed how an individual’s cognition is a result of various components involving the mind, biological maturation, and the environment. Environmental influences include family, local neighborhood or community, and culture. (Bridge, Judd &Moock, 1979). Given all the previously discussed theoreticians and their views on learning theory, Gardner (1983) presented a perspective on learning theory based on eight different levels of intelligence: linguistic-verbal, mathematical-logical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical-rhythmic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. These relate to a preferred method of learning by an individual. Each individual in turn has a preferred method, which is related to culture. If the perspective on learning theory and intelligence is implemented, learning situations can be tuned in to individuals within a culture. In other words, learning styles are based on individuals in a culture and learning can be influenced by knowing the individual’s preferred learning style. Knowing that learners may have a preferred learning style can help achieve optimal learning environments and situations.
2.2 Concept of Learning Style
People have preferences about how they like to learn which is called their learning style. These sometimes account for their problems in learning using a particular approach such as in a classroom or on the job. This may not be entirely due to their learning style but also due to their previous experience. There are a number of systems for describing learning styles. Some well known views of learning styles are provided by:
David Kolb is one of the leading researchers in learning strategies and learning processes. His model uses the Lewin Cycle of adult learning. Kolb suggests that there are four stages that follow on from each other to complete the cycle of learningThe first stage is concrete experience where a student has active experience of learning something first hand.This is then followed by reflective observation on that personal experience.The next phase of the cycle, abstract conceptualisation, focuses on how the experience is applied to known theory and how it can then be modified for future active experimentation.
Peter Honey and Alan Mumford have identified four main learning style preferences.Activist, Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist
Having developed the model over many years prior, David Kolb published his learning styles model in 1984. The model gave rise to related terms such as Kolb's experiential learning theory (ELT), and Kolb's learning styles inventory (LSI). In his publications - notably his 1984 book 'Experiential Learning: Experience As The Source Of Learning And Development' Kolb acknowledges the early work on experiential learning by others in the 1900's, including Rogers, Jung, and Piaget. In turn, Kolb's learning styles model and experiential learning theory are today acknowledged by academics, teachers, managers and trainers as truly seminal works; fundamental concepts towards our understanding and explaining human learning behaviour, and towards helping others to learn. See also Gardner's Multiple Intelligences and VAK learnings styles models, which assist in understanding and using Kolb's learning styles concepts.
A full online version of this questionnaire is available from the Peter Honey website on a pay-as-you-go basis for ?10. Your results include a full report with suggestions about how to become a more effective learner.
The LdPride.net website has information about learning styles and Multiple Intelligence (MI) and is helpful for everyone especially for people with learning disabilities and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This site provides an explanation of what learning styles and MI are all about, an interactive assessment of your learning style/MI, and practical tips to make your learning style work for you.
In addition to personal business interests (Kolb is founder and chairman of Experience Based Learning Systems), David Kolb is still (at the time I write this, 2005) Professor of Organizational Development at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, where he teaches and researches in the fields of learning and development, adult development, experiential learning, learning style, and notably 'learning focused institutional development in higher education'.
Learning styles are a collection of multiple modes that determine how an individual perceives, processes and understands information. Learning styles are the modalities by which students most efficiently learn (Claxton & Murrell, 1987). They also are a major factor influencing a student’s educational performance (Claxton & Murrell, 1987; Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Felder, 1998; Torres & Cano, 1994). Students exhibit different approaches to learning and that this may differ from culture to culture due to its influences (Richardson, 1994).
Various learning style models have been devised that enable evaluation of student learning styles (Fox and Ronkowski, 1997). Instruction should be adapted to the learning style of the student (Felder, 1988). This is an interesting facet of pedagogical adaptation. Depending on the demographics of students, instructors may find themselves with a wide variety of cultural representations or they may find themselves teaching a vast minority population. Bush (2003) identifies cultural factors that might explain differences in mathematics achievement and attitudes. Banks (2006) discussed how cultural influences need to be understood in order to assist
students. Since the cultural aspects influence learning, the instructional pedagogy should be adapted to accommodate the learner (Felder, 1988).
Learning styles are ways in which students use information, stimuli and other forms of processes in a consistent manner to gain knowledge (Felder, 1993; Piaget, 1950; Vygotsky, 1978). Learning styles are not isolated categories but are a scale by which a preference may be made in the way a person learns. People can learn in multiple ways, however, the preference for learning may differ. A learning style can be defined in various ways, including the preference by which individuals learn best. A learning style does not preclude that individuals can learn in multiple ways and using various tools, rather it indicates that a preferred learning method exists by which information is attained, reflected upon and understood. In addition, as theory indicates, Tanner and Allen (2004) stated
From a biological perspective, the brain is the organ of learning, and as such, a learning style is likely to be a complex, emergent interaction of the neurophysiology or an individual’s brain and the unique developmental process that has shaped it through experience and interaction with the environment. (p. 19)
III. RESEARCH AND METHOD
This chapter discusses information about the research design, questions and hypotheses,, variables, population, sample, the instrument, data collection methods, and the method of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
A quantitative study design was chosen to test the relationship between learning style preference and student achievement in minority students in DINIYYAH PUTRI LAMPUNG. The study was a quantitative method design using a survey instrument, by Peter Honey and Mumfordquisionaire. This method also allowed a large number of participants to be surveyed from a small group of individuals.
A quantitative approach is one in which the investigator primarily uses post positivist claims for developing knowledge (i.e., cause and effect thinking, reduction to specific variables and hypotheses and questions, use of measurement and observation, and the test of theories), employs strategies of inquiry such as experiments and surveys, and collects data on predetermined instruments that yield statistical data. (p.18)
The research design was based on gathering data to determine the relationship between the learning styles of the adult student and achievement (grades). Based on the purpose of the study, the questions were based on quantifying the data gathered in order to obtain information for the use of best applied learning techniques for student achievement. All students within the sample were invited and encouraged to participate in the study. However, the main emphasis was the student population preferences.
3.2 Variables
The independent variables in this study were the learning styles, ethnicity, and race. The independent variables were based on Felder’s (1996), categories of learning styles, and correlating the preferred styles in the minority groups. The dependent variable was the student achievement measured in this study by the grade obtained at the end of the course, which was a 16-week term. The dependent variable, student achievement as measured by the overall grade, was based on an A-F scale (A = 90-100; B = 80-89;
C = 70-79; D = 60-69; F < 60).
3.3 Population and Sample
The population used for this study consisted of senior high school students. The course subject was selected is English subject because of ease of accessibility by the researcher and the subject interest. The population of the study was comprised of students in DINIYYAH PUTRI LAMPUNG The investigation was conducted in the final examination with approximate population of 20 students. Grades were obtained at the end of the semester and provided by the instructor in the English subject.
3.4 The Instrument
The method used in this study involved the use of the Honey and Mumford's model, Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), is directly derived from Kolb's theory. Honey and Mumford (2000) note their debt to Kolb's theory, however, they also note that they produced their own Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) because they found that Kolb's LSI had low face validity with managers. So rather than asking people directly how they learn, as Kolb's LSI does, Honey and Mumford gave them a questionnaire that probes general behavioral tendencies. Their reasoning is most people have never consciously considered how they really learn.
While basically the same as Kolb's model, there are a couple of differences. First, they substitute the terms "reflector" for divergers (reflective observation), "theorist" for assimilators (abstract conceptualization), "pragmatist" for convergers (concrete experience), and "activist" for accommodators (active experimentation). In addition, the new labels have slightly different meanings.
They also postulate that people prefer different methods of learning, depending upon the situation and their experience level, thus they move between the four modes of learning, rather than being dominantly locked into one mode.
3.5 Method of Data Analysis
The method of data analysis that was used in this study involved a quantitative method design that allowed relationship of the various independent variables to that of the dependent variable. The following quantitative methods were used These tested hypotheses about the frequencies that were expected in a distribution. The tests were conducted on ethnicity, race (minority group), grades, and learning styles that tested hypotheses about the frequencies that were expected in a distribution. In addition, measures of relationship between variables, such as the ANOVA measured the degree of linear relationship (learning style and grades, grades and minority group). Tables and charts were provided using SPSS, Excel, or Word Tables. The methodology and data analysis was designed so that the researcher could gather data addressing the research study questions and test the hypotheses. Since question number one was not a relationship question, but a descriptive one, descriptive methods were used to analyze the data. Other quantitative methods were not appropriate for this study since other ones involved more than one sample, or treatment. This study involved one sample and was a one-shot study. The purpose of this study was to test hypotheses that related student achievement and learning style preferences in senior high school students. The results of this survey could be used to recommend to and assist the methods of teaching strategies that might better help student achievement in English subject. This research can also be used to study students in other science and subject courses.
Table 1 addressed the four research questions in this study and the statistical application. General information such as grade distribution and ethnicity were analyzed and tabulated using SPSS and or Excel using statistical procedures and analysis
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of the Research
The result from this research are: disscussion, data analysis and the relationship
4.2 Discussion
Since Honey and Mumford first gave birth to their Learning Styles theory, in the late eighties, many a trainer has sought to present this most useful of concepts in ever more engaging ways. Honey and Mumford (in particular, the former) have sought to re-kindle flagging interest in their original product by re-packaging it in a variety of guises – though I am still awaiting the hand painted (by Peter Honey) tee-shirts, emblazoned no doubt with various appropriate mottoes:
· Activists
· could proclaim:
· Pragmatists
· would assure us:
· Theorists
· could affirm:
· Reflectors
· might muse:
What nobody seems to have latched onto is the obvious next phase of the theory. As a trainer, I am always careful to point out that individuals do not fall neatly into pigeon-holed categories – but that each of us employs a complex combination of learning styles – depending on context, circumstance and the nature of what we are trying to learn. Each of us possesses not merely one clearly-defined learning style but a combination of two or more. This has led me to consider how we might designate the various combinations – so as to provide not merely the “bare bones” four-category model proposed by H&M – but an additional six combinatorial categories. Not that I am suggesting we should adopt such a model wholesale (it would be considerably more difficult to handle) or attempt to replace the eminently practical traditional model – but it does set you thinking.
Here then, for the consideration, are my slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestions for the enhancement of Learning Styles theory.
At first glance you might think that the Activist-Reflector is a most unlikely combination; they do appear to be situated at opposite ends of the style-spectrum. However, I suspect that they are more prevalent than we realise – and that most of us have been their unwitting victims or apologists. They are the type of person who cannot help but acting first – who then realise that they really shouldn’t have acted that way. The kind of person who opens their mouth, puts their foot in it – and then realises what they have said. The Activist-Reflector is known in the training trade as a “REGRETTER”.
Theorists, as you will be aware, like to make connections. They constantly ask “Why?” and then seek to organise the new information elicited so that it forms a cohesive overall picture of how things are. Activist-Theorists, on the other hand, although they still have lots of questions, generally do not have the time or inclination to sort or process all the information thus obtained. They excel at brainstorming, insofar as they generate new ideas; each new idea acting as a catalyst for the spontaneous eruption of further progeny. Unfortunately they rarely stop to consider the implications of their ideas – preferring to rely on friendly passing Reflectors to take on that role. The Activist-Theorist is technically known as a “SCATTERBRAIN”.
Pragmatists are known as clearly-focused problem-solvers who relish the challenge of devising solutions to specific tasks. The Activist-Pragmatist is a slightly different animal who, typically, solves the problem – but invariably by means of utilising elastic bands, bulldog clips and the odd piece of chewing gum. The Activist-Pragmatist does not so much solve the problem as improvise a somewhat makeshift Heath Robinson affair – giving rise to them being known, in technical terminology, as a “BODGER”.
Theorist-Pragmatists, on the other hand, do not merely solve the problem. They delight in asking a whole series of “What if?” questions and then providing practical answers to the difficulties thus envisaged. They then engage in an ordered programme of implementing all the necessary safeguards to ensure that such a problem – or any associated similar or dissimilar problem – is unlikely to inflict itself in the future. In essence, the pragmatic “quick fix” is translated into a fully guaranteed solution that takes into account every conceivable potentiality for failure in order to ensure against it. Theorist-Pragmatists are known as “SAFEGUARDERS”.
The Pragmatist-Reflector also appreciates having a particular problem to address and invariably manages to devise a down-to-earth settlement. Unfortunately, they are then beset with uncertainty whether the solution they initially proposed is the best one. Did the original idea fully utilise available resources? Have all the implications been thought through? Maybe there was a cheaper alternative? They can often be found checking to make sure that the original solution is still in place and holding water. The Pragmatist-Reflector is known officially as a “TWEAKER”.
Pragmatist-Reflectors are not to be confused with Reflector-Pragmatists. These latter individuals can be found wandering aimlessly around garages or garden sheds at weekends, musing on whether they are properly equipped to rake out the gutters, mow the lawn or fix the broken gate. They spend much of their life “getting around to it” and differ from true Reflectors – who can be found lounging in the sunshine in padded garden chairs. Reflector-Pragmatists are affectionately known as “DITHERERS”.
The Theorist-Reflector is thoughtful and comprehensive; a dotter of i’s and a crosser of t’s. As something of a perfectionist, they are rarely able to complete anything to their own satisfaction. There is, they believe, always something else to be added, adapted, appended. Occasionally dubbed (somewhat unprofessionally) a “worry-guts”, the official term for a Theorist-Reflector is a “DOUBLE-CHECKER”.
Somehow, I suspect that this variation on a theme is unlikely to gain a great deal of credence with those in the field of teaching, training and learning development. Why not? Probably because it is rather cumbersome and lacks the pigeon-holing simplicity of Honey and Mumford’s original model. It is, after all, far easier and less time-consuming to slot people into one of four categories than attempt to analyse each person individually. That is a shame really, because I was just starting to get the idea of how to re-vamp an old idea so that it can be re-packaged and re-sold. I was already working on the tee-shirt slogans for this next generation of learning styles (“Oops!” for Regretters) and what about triple combinations! (What would you call a Theorist-Activist-Reflector?) My ideas for the action-dolls were not to be sniffed at either, though I grant you that “Ray the Reflector-man” does not actually do a great deal for £19.99 compared with “Anneka-Activist”, the all-singing, all-dancing, aerobic surf-swimming, wind-her-up-and-watch-her-go action-doll (snazzy jump suit!). Oh well, back to the drawing board!
4.3 Data Analysis and Relationship
The following section discusses research questions 1 through 2 in which relationships are made between learning styles, achievement of students as measured by grades. For the next part of this chapter, the use of various statistical tests such as Crosstabs, Independent Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).
Oneway
| ANOVA | |||||
| Nilai | | | | | |
| | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
| Between Groups | 13.383 | 4 | 3.346 | .089 | .985 |
| Within Groups | 566.367 | 15 | 37.758 | | |
| Total | 579.750 | 19 | | | |
Post Hoc Tests
| Multiple Comparisons | ||||||
| Nilai Scheffe | | | | | | |
| (I) styles | (J) styles | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
| 3.17 | 4 | -2.16667 | 5.60935 | .997 | -21.7772 | 17.4438 |
| 4.17 | -1.90000 | 5.14105 | .998 | -19.8733 | 16.0733 | |
| 5.17 | -1.50000 | 4.85784 | .999 | -18.4832 | 15.4832 | |
| 6 | -3.50000 | 6.14474 | .987 | -24.9822 | 17.9822 | |
| 4 | 3.17 | 2.16667 | 5.60935 | .997 | -17.4438 | 21.7772 |
| 4.17 | .26667 | 4.48748 | 1.000 | -15.4217 | 15.9551 | |
| 5.17 | .66667 | 4.16001 | 1.000 | -13.8769 | 15.2102 | |
| 6 | -1.33333 | 5.60935 | 1.000 | -20.9438 | 18.2772 | |
| 4.17 | 3.17 | 1.90000 | 5.14105 | .998 | -16.0733 | 19.8733 |
| 4 | -.26667 | 4.48748 | 1.000 | -15.9551 | 15.4217 | |
| 5.17 | .40000 | 3.50304 | 1.000 | -11.8468 | 12.6468 | |
| 6 | -1.60000 | 5.14105 | .999 | -19.5733 | 16.3733 | |
| 5.17 | 3.17 | 1.50000 | 4.85784 | .999 | -15.4832 | 18.4832 |
| 4 | -.66667 | 4.16001 | 1.000 | -15.2102 | 13.8769 | |
| 4.17 | -.40000 | 3.50304 | 1.000 | -12.6468 | 11.8468 | |
| 6 | -2.00000 | 4.85784 | .996 | -18.9832 | 14.9832 | |
| 6 | 3.17 | 3.50000 | 6.14474 | .987 | -17.9822 | 24.9822 |
| 4 | 1.33333 | 5.60935 | 1.000 | -18.2772 | 20.9438 | |
| 4.17 | 1.60000 | 5.14105 | .999 | -16.3733 | 19.5733 | |
| 5.17 | 2.00000 | 4.85784 | .996 | -14.9832 | 18.9832 | |
Homogeneous Subsets
| nilai | ||
| Scheffe | | |
| styles | N | Subset for alpha = 0.05 |
| 1 | ||
| 3.17 | 2 | 81.5000 |
| 5.17 | 8 | 83.0000 |
| 4.17 | 5 | 83.4000 |
| 4 | 3 | 83.6667 |
| 6 | 2 | 85.0000 |
| Sig. | | .972 |
| Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. | ||
Frequencies
| Statistics | ||
| Styles | | |
| N | Valid | 20 |
| Missing | 0 | |
| Median | 4.6700 | |
| Range | 2.83 | |
| styles | |||||
| | | Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent |
| Valid | 3.17 | 2 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| 4 | 3 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 25.0 | |
| 4.17 | 5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | |
| 5.17 | 8 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 90.0 | |
| 6 | 2 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 20 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | |
\
V. CONCLUSION
In this chapter there are some conclusion based on the research about learning styles
5.1 conclusion
People have preferences about how they like to learn which is called their learning style. These sometimes account for their problems in learning using a particular approach such as in a classroom or on the job. This may not be entirely due to their learning style but also due to their previous experience. There are a number of systems for describing learning styles. Some well known views of learning styles are provided by Honey and mumford.
Peter Honey and Alan Mumford have identified four main learning style preferences.
- Activist
- Reflector
- Theorist
- Pragmatist
Activists:
Activists like to be involved in new experiences and are enthusiastic about new ideas. They enjoy doing things and tend to act first and consider the implications afterwards. They are unlikely to prepare for the learning experience or review their learning afterwards.
Activists learn best when:
- involved in new experiences, problems and opportunities
- working with others in team tasks or role-playing
- being thrown in the deep end with a difficult task
- chairing meetings, leading discussions
Activists learn less when:
- listening to lectures or long explanations
- reading, writing or thinking on their own
- absorbing and understanding data
- following precise instruction to the letter
Reflectors:
Reflectors like to view the situation from different perspectives. They like to collect data, review and think carefully before coming to any conclusions. They enjoy observing others and will listen to their views before offering their own.
Reflectors learn best when:
- observing individuals or groups at work
- reviewing what has happened and thinking about what they have learned
- producing analyses and reports doing tasks without tight deadlines
Reflectors learn less when:
- acting as leader or role-playing in front of others
- doing things with no time to prepare
- being thrown in at the deep end
- being rushed or worried by deadlines
Theorists:
Theorists like to adapt and integrate observations into complex and logically sound theories. They think problems through step- by-step. They tend to be perfectionists who like to fit things into a rational scheme.
Theorists learn best when:
- put in complex situations where they have to use their skills and knowledge
- they are in structured situations with clear purpose
- they are offered interesting ideas or concepts even though they are not immediately relevant
- they have the chance to question and probe ideas
Theorists learn less when:
- they have to participate in situations which emphasise emotion and feelings
- the activity is unstructured or briefing is poor
- they have to do things without knowing the principles or concepts involved
- they feel they're out of tune with the other participants, for example people with different learning styles
Pragmatists:
Pragmatists are eager to try things out. They like concepts that can be applied to their job. They tend to be impatient with lengthy discussions and are practical and down to earth.
Pragmatists learn best when:
- there is a link between the topic and job
- they have the chance to try out techniques
- they are shown techniques with obvious advantages such as saving time
- they are shown a model they can copy
Pragmatists learn less when:
- there is no obvious or immediate benefit that they can recognise
- there is no practice or guidelines on how to do it
- there is no apparent benefit to the learning
- the event or learning is 'all theory'
from this reasearch, we can find the styles of learning and the relationship between learning style and student achievement based on their syles.
REFERENCES
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar