ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online) © 2016 Khate Sefid Press The ... · learning (Hatch & Farhady, 1981)....

International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)

Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)

ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)

© 2016 Khate Sefid Press

Page | 59

The Relationship between Learning Styles and

Willingness to Communicate among EFL Learners

Regarding Gender

Mehrdad Nazarieh (M.A) Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran

Email: [email protected]

Mohammad Hassan Razmi (M.A) Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Not just one research would answer all the questions aroused in the realm of teaching and

learning (Hatch & Farhady, 1981). This research seeks to extend our current knowledge by

exploring the relationship between a certain set of learning styles (visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic) and willingness to communicate (WTC) among Iranian EFL learners. Responding

to the call for more replication of learning style research and for research in different cultural

context, this research was undertaken in Shahid Bahonar university of Kerman. For this

purpose, Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995), and WTC scale adapted from MacIntyre,

Baker, Clement and Conrod (2001) were used to gather the data. Forty eight EFL learners

participated in this study. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted to assess the

result of the questionnaires. The correlation showed that there was not a significant correlation

between learning styles and WTC. However, this study showed females to be more visual-

oriented than males. Conversely, males were found to be more auditory-oriented than females.

Concerning the kinesthetic style, no significant differences were found between males and

females. Considering WTC and its relationship with males and females there appeared to be

no significant difference among Iranian EFL learners with different genders.

Keywords: Willingness to Communicate (WTC), Learning Style, English as a Foreign

Language (EFL)





Page | 60

Introduction

Different directions lead to different destinations. Having the desire to reach a certain

destination necessitates a host of factors to be considered. People have different approaches when

they have a specific direction to take (Riding & Rayner, 1998). Entering the realm of teaching

and learning, one would approve of learning styles as a factor among the leading approaches of

the kind. People have different learning styles, and having different styles would make the people

choose different routes to reach an apparently the same goal. Besides, students use different

learning approaches in different contexts (Ramsden, 1988). The common ground for all

situations would be a place where communication is taken place. Communication, as a

sophisticated objective of language, can be regarded as a goal by itself not necessarily as a

means. Willingness to communicate as an affective factor would hold the key and answer

whether people with different learning styles desire different ways of communicating. People

learn in order that they could communicate to reach their goals. The process of learning happens

in different ways based on the styles the learners prefer in different situations. Yet the question is

how the learners use what they have learned in communicating with others. The answer is not

easy to determine. There seem to be many factors influencing the relationship between learning

styles and willingness to communicate. Such a relationship has not been fully investigated. The

present study is in search of a justifiable way to investigate the relationship between learning

styles and willingness to communicate. Furthermore, in this study, the gender of the participants

has been used as a moderator variable both in determining the learning styles preferences and in

the relationship between the two variables, namely learning styles and willingness to

communicate.

Review of Literature

Learning Style

Definition of Learning Style

Different scholars have different definitions and classifications of learning styles. Claxton and

Ralston (1978) defined the term as a learner’s “consistent way of responding and using stimuli in

the context of learning” (p.7). According to Dunn and Dunn (1993), learners are different in





Page | 61

using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience; these variations can be

described as the learning styles. Keefe (1979) defined learning styles as “ cognitive, affective,

and physiological traits that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact

with, and respond to the learning environment” (p.4). Dun, Beaudry, and Klavas (1989) stated

that “learning style is a biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make the

same teaching method effective for one and ineffective for others” (p.50). Felder (1996) also

defined learning styles as “the characteristic strengths and preferences in the way individuals take

in and process information” (p.18).

Learning Style Models

According to Keefe (1987), there are three dimensions of learning styles: cognitive (as

information-processing habits), affective (as motivationally-based processes), and physiological

(as biologically-based responses) .

The Myers-briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCalley, 1985) states four dimensions of

learning styles:

1. Sensing vs. intuition

2. Thinking vs. feeling

3. Extroversion vs. introversion

4. Judging vs. perceiving

Kolb (1976, 1984) proposed a learning style model which is based on perceived

information and also processing the perceived information. However, Gregorc’s Mind-style

Model (1979) is based on perceiving the information and ordering the perceived information. By

combining the two ideas, Gregorc (1979) creates four learning style classifications: concrete

sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, and concrete random.

By integrating Kolb’s model with recent research on right/left brain processing,

McCarthy (1987, 1996) produced the 4MAT System. According to her model, there are four

types of learners: innovative learners, analytic learners, common sense learners, and dynamic

learners.





Page | 62

The focus of this study is on the classification of learning styles proposed by Reid

(1987). According to Reid (1987), perceptual learning style preferences are the perceptual

channels through which the students prefer to learn, so there are five such channels: auditory,

visual, kinesthetic, tactile and interactive (group or individual learning). Visual students prefer

reading and studying charts, because they can learn better by their eyes. Auditory learners prefer

to learn with ears, so listening to lectures or audiotapes can be good for them. Tactile learners

learn better when they can handle, touch, feel, or manipulate objects. Kinesthetic learners learn

better through whole-body activities, such as taking a trip or interacting with others.

Previous Findings

Reid (1987) conducted a research with respect to the learning style preferences of ESL

learners. The overall results of the research indicated that ESL learners strongly preferred

kinesthetic and tactile learning styles when compared to audio and visual. In addition, most

groups showed a negative preference for group learning. Stebbins (1995) replicated Reid’s study

in order to obtain more information about the similarities and differences in learning styles

between ESL learners and Native English Speakers (NESs). He found that kinesthetic and tactile

styles were strongly preferred by ESL students when compared to NESs.

Willing (1988) conducted a research with respect to the learning styles in adult migrant

education. Regarding the analysis of the results, Willing stated that it was impossible to make

“statistically valid cross-comparisons relating a question to more than biographical variable at a

time” (p. 122).

Riazi and Riasati (2005) conducted a research to investigate the language learning style

preferences of Iranian EFL learners, and the degree of teachers’ awareness of them. The results of

the study showed the learning preferences of the students in different areas. The learners

preferred the visual, auditory, global, and extrovert styles. With respect to the degree of teachers’

awareness of their learners’ style preferences, it was revealed that teachers were aware of their

students’ preferences in some cases, but unaware in some others. They concluded that there

needs to be a closer cooperation between teachers and students in some instances.





Page | 63

Willingness to Communicate

Definition of Willingness to Communicate

The term willingness to communicate (WTC), which came from Burgoon’s (1976)

concept of “unwillingness to communicate”, was first used to explain individual differences in

first language communication and it was assumed to be a trait like predisposition, which is stable

over time and across different situations. As Peng (2006) suggested, individuals are found to be

different in their communication tendencies. Some like to speak only when spoken to, while

others are active talkers. Some individuals like to speak with some special interlocutors but may

remain silent with others.

By considering WTC as a trait-like predisposition, we can have various definitions for

it. It was first conceptualized as the probability of engaging in communication when free to do so

(McCroskey & Baer, 1985). It was also defined as the tendency of an individual to begin a

communication when free to do so (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991).

L2 willingness to communicate was defined as a “readiness to enter into discourse at a

particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547).

Thus MacIntyre et al. (1998) suggested that L2 WTC should be considered as the primary

purpose of language instruction and as a conceptual frame work for describing, explaining and

predicting communication behavior in L2. As Dorneyi (2003) suggested, L2 competence is not

considered to be enough. In other words, it is not enough for the learners to be just able to

communicate in L2, but they should also be willing to communicate in L2. Research has

shown that learners’ frequent active engagement in L2 communication is influenced by the

learners’ WTC (Clement et al., 2003; Yashima et al., 2004)

Researchers also make a distinction between WTC inside the classroom, that is when

the teacher asks questions and students are required to answer them, and outside the classroom,

that is when they communicate with their friends (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, &Conrod, 2001;

Yashima et al., 2004).

Willingness to Communicate Models

In early models of WTC (MacIntyre, 1994), two variables could predict WTC; that

is, perceived communication competence and communicative anxiety. In other words, the model





Page | 64

suggested that a combination of high levels of perceived communication competence with low

levels of anxiety could lead to greater WTC and then more frequent communication in L2 would

take place.

In 1998, MacIntyre et al. proposed a multi layered pyramid model of WTC. This model

made a distinction between stable enduring differences (such as personality traits) and situation

specific influences (such as the desire to communicate with a special person). It suggested that

as the learners move up the pyramid, the learners can have more control over the act of

communicating in L2. The model with six layers has a total of 12 constructs.

The layers from top to bottom are:

Communication behavior (a)

Behavioral intention (b)

Situated antecedents (c)

Motivational propensities (d)

Affective-Cognitive context (e)

Social and individual context (f)

The twelve constructs from top to bottom are:

Use (a)

Willingness to communicate (b)

Desire to communicate with a specific person (c)

State of communicating self-confidence (c)

Interpersonal motivation (d)

Intergroup motivation (d)

Self-confidence (d)

Intergroup attitudes (e)

Social situation (e)

Competence (e)

Intergroup climate (f)

Personality (f)





Page | 65

Previous Findings

Researchers have examined the effect of two kinds of variables on WTC: that is the

individual variables and situational variables.

Among individual variables, two factors have been found to be important predictors of

WTC, which are perceived communicative competence and communication anxiety (Baker &

MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre et al., 2001; McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Some researchers have

examined the effect of other individual variables such as gender and age (MacIntyre et al., 2002),

attitudes toward the international community (Yashima, 2002) and prior immersion experience

(MacIntyre et al., 2003). All these factors have been found to affect WTC.

Among situational variables, the effect of social contextual variables has been

investigated. Social support, especially from friends, has been found to influence WTC outside

the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 2001). In another study, while comparing French immersion

versus non-immersion programs, WTC has been found to be influenced by learning context

(Baker & MacIntyre, 2000). L2 WTC has been found to be influenced by the quality and

frequency of L2 contact, interacting with each other through the mediation of L2 confidence

(Clement et al., 2003).

In house’s (2004) study, which is about L2 learners’ own perceptions of factors

contributing to WTC, other factors have been found that, might influence WTC in different

contexts. He found out that only when an opportunity appeared which is perceived as suitable for

communication, the learners could actually take part in communication. Some minor factors were

also found to affect WTC, such as perceived politeness, the role of physical locality, the presence

of opposite sex and the topic under discussion.

Cultural factors have also been found to affect learners’ willingness to use the

opportunities to take part in communication (Feris & Tagg, 1996). Asian L2 learners are

considered to be reticent and passive learners (Cheng, 2000), who are unwilling to speak up in

class (Tsui, 1996) and reluctant to work in groups (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996).

Authors Wen and Clement in their article “A Chinese conceptualization of willingness

to communicate in ESL”, attempted something of a cultural anthropology of WTC in Chinese

students (as cited in Peng, 2006). They found that the reason for Chinese students’ reticence was





Page | 66

rooted in two aspects which control the interpersonal relations: that is another directed self and a

submissive way of learning.

International posture, along with L2 confidence in communication, was found to affect

WTC directly (Yashima, 2002). His study also showed that proficiency could influence

confidence in L2 communication, but the path was not significant.

In Japanese context, it has been found out that students do have the abilities to

communicate in L2, but they lack confidence in L2 communication. Yashima (2002) concluded

that EFL lessons should be designed in a way that they increase the learners’ interest in different

cultures and international activities, to decrease the learners’ anxiety and build confidence in L2

communication

Method

Participants

Since this study’s objective was finding the relationship between EFL students’

learning styles and their willingness to communicate in L2, it was done in an academic setting.

The 48 students participating in this study, including 20 males and 28 females, were EFL

students of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, majoring in English literature and translation

at BA and MA levels.

Materials

Learning Styles Scale

Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995) was used to measure the learning styles of the

learners. It was developed by Andrew D. Cohen, Rebecca L. Oxford, and Julie C. Chi (see

Appendix 2). It consists of 110 items measuring different learning styles. This study aimed to

measure a certain set of learning styles, namely visual, auditory, and kinesthetic ones. For this

purpose the first three parts of the scale including 30 items was used. The participants were asked

to choose their answers from among five choices ranging from 0 for 'never' to 4 for 'always'.

Willingness to Communicate Scale

EFL learners’ willingness to communicate was measured through using the WTC

scale adapted from MacIntyre, Baker, Clement and Conrod (2001) (see Appendix 2). The scale





Page | 67

consists of 27 items assessing the frequency of times that students will choose to communicate in

their English classrooms. Responses to the items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, at one

end by “almost always willing” and at the other end by “almost never willing”. Higher scores

indicated higher levels of WTC in L2.

Procedure

The two questionnaires, one to measure learning styles and the other to measure

WTC, were given to 48 EFL students of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, and they were

asked to fill in the scales. Having collected the questionnaires, the researchers calculated the

scores of every participant based on the scoring method provided for every scale. Every

individual had two scores, one for learning style, and the other for WTC. It is worth mentioning

that each learning style score included three sub-scores measuring different kinds of learning

styles, namely visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.

Results

The descriptive statistics of the EFL learners according to gender is shown in Table 1.

Table1. Descriptive information about the gender of the participants.

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 20 41.6

Female 28 58.4

Total 48 100

The relationship between learning styles and WTC

In order to test the relationship between learning styles and WTC, three pairs of

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4) were run using SPSS to

investigate the relationship between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles and WTC





Page | 68

respectively. The results indicate that there are not positive significant correlations between the

above-mentioned learning styles and WTC.

Table 2. Correlation between visual style and WTC.

Visual style WTC

visual style

Pearson correlation 1 0.228**

Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.120

N 48 48

WTC

Pearson correlation 0.228** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.120 -

N 48 48

** Correlation is not significant.

Table 3. Correlation between auditory style and WTC.

Auditory style WTC

Auditory style


Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.196

N 48 48

WTC


Sig. (2-tailed) 0.196 -

N 48 48






Page | 69

Table 4. Correlation between kinesthetic style and WTC.

Kinesthetic style WTC

Kinesthetic style


Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.089

N 48 48

WTC


Sig. (2-tailed) 0.089 -

N 48 48


Differences in learning styles and WTC according to gender

To explore whether there were significant gender differences in EFL learners with

different style preferences, three pairs of Independent T-Test analyses were conducted. The

results revealed that there were significant differences between male and female EFL learners

concerning their learning styles preferences. Females showed to be more visual-oriented than

males were (Table 5). This study also showed males to be more auditory-oriented than females

(Table 6). Concerning the kinesthetic style, no significant differences were found between males

and females (see Appendix 1). To explore whether there were significant gender differences in

EFL learners with different WTC scores, an Independent T-test was conducted. The results did

not show significant differences between female and male participants concerning their WTC

(see Appendix 1).

Table 5. T-Test analysis – visual style and gender

Groups N M SD T df F Sig P

Male 20 24.3000 5.81378 -2.253 46 3.909 .029

Female 28 27.5357 4.14981





Page | 70

Significant (2-tailed)

Table 6. T-Test analysis – auditory style and gender

Groups N M SD T df F Sig P

Male 20 22.8500 5.81378 1.996 46 0.16 .52

Female 28 20.7500 4.14981

Significant (2-tailed)

Discussion

The present study examined the relations between the EFL learners' learning styles and

their degree of WTC. The further analyses also included the gender of the learners. In order to

analyze the first objective of the study, three pairs of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation were

done and it was found out that the correlation coefficients between learning styles, namely,

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles, and WTC were not positively significant which is an

indicator of the fact that there is not a positive relationship between these two variables (Table 2,

Table3, and Table 4). These findings are in line with those reported by Armstrong (1987), Carbo

and Hodges (1988), and Dunn (1983) While in conflict with the findings of McCroskey and

Richmond (1991) which indicated that there were some weak but significant correlations

between learners' learning styles and their WTC, with the learners with visual and kinesthetic

styles reporting higher degrees of WTC.

In this study, in order to analyze the effect of gender on learning styles, three pairs of

independent T-Test analyses were done and they showed that there were significant differences

between male and female learners concerning their learning style preferences with females being

more of a visual style and males being more of an auditory type (Table 5 and Table 6). Yet, the

results showed no significant differences concerning the kinesthetic style (Table 8). These

findings were in conflict with the findings of Garger and Guild (1984) and Hunt (1981) which

indicated that there were also significant differences between males and females regarding the

kinesthetic style with males showing higher degree of this style. However, the reason for this

conflict may be due to such factors as culture and the kind of environment.





Page | 71

The present study bears the limitations that it characterized by cross-sectional research based on

self-reported answers. Additionally, the subjects were from a single university in Iran, which may

limit the generalizability of this study to other areas and other learners. The small size of the

sample, also, adds to the mentioned problem. Another major limitation of this study lies in the

researchers' dependence upon just the three learning styles and ignoring the other ones which

may be due to limitations of time, measures, and participants.

With regard to the limitations mentioned above, the future studies could be done by

measuring learners' learning styles and their WTC through some qualitative tools such as

interviews, think-aloud protocols, and classroom observations which might provide further

insight into these variables. It would be also worthwhile to examine the research questions

among larger samples and various universities in Iran or elsewhere in order to shed light on the

larger groups of learners worldwide. Furthermore, studies could be done measuring the

relationship of other learning styles and WTC rather than the three styles being measured in this

study, so that their results may confirm or deny the findings of this research.

The findings of this study also have certain practical implications for EFL teachers.

According to findings of this study, since every learner with a different learning style may or may

not be more willing to communicate than other learners with some other learning styles, teachers

should not link a learner's unwillingness to communicate with his/her style, but they could try to

improve the learners' WTC regardless of the style he/she may have.

Conclusion

In addition to making current knowledge and initiatives available to a wider spectrum of

the educational community, future advancement requires that new questions be posed, existing

conceptualizations deepened, and dilemmas identified and addressed (Galbraith & Clatworthy,

1990). In order to reach such a sophisticated goal, teachers should be made aware of the

individual differences and different approaches the learners undertake within the confined walls

of a class. Learning must show itself in the outcome perspectives. Whatever the outcome is, the

communication is needed to epitomize the presence of a learned issue. To prove such an ongoing

case, one should step beyond picking the low hanging fruit and desire confrontation of challenges

to be resolved. Supporting this idea, the present study aimed to consider different learning styles





Page | 72

in different people and assess its relationship with WTC. This study did not show a significant

relationship between the two variables. Accordingly, if the replication of such studies would

prove it right, one’s lack of willingness to communicate is not due to possessing different

learning styles. Furthermore, other affective factors such as class anxiety, risk taking, shyness, to

name but a few may have a lot to do with learners’ WTC. Besides, this study showed that males

and females have different learning styles. Therefore, curriculum developers and material

designers should provide curriculums and materials that best suit different learners with different

degrees of learning styles preferences and with different genders.

References

Armstrong, C. (1987). On learning style. Clearing House, 61,(pp. 157-161).

Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D. (2000).The role of gender and immersion in communication and

second language orientations. Language Learning, 50 (2), 311–341.

Burgoon, J.K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: development and validation.

Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69.

Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies can help students at risk. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 20(4), (pp. 55-58).

Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435–446.

Claxton, C., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and

administration. AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Report Bo. 10 Washington

DC: American association for the study of higher education. pp. 1-74.

Clement, R., Baker, S.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second

language: the effect of context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 22 (2), 190–209.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classroom in China. In: Coleman,

H. (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 169–206.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: advances in

theory, research, and applications. Language Learning,53, 3–32.





Page | 73

Dunn, R. (1983). Now that you know your learning style-How can you make the most of it?

Early Years, 13(6), (pp. 49-54).

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles.

Educational Leadership, 47, 50-58.

Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning

styles:practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.

Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6 (4), 18-23

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: problems,

suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (2), 297–320.

Galbraith, P.L. & Clatworthy, N.J. (1990). Beyond Standard Models: Meeting the Challenge of

Modelling. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 21,2,137-163.

Garger, S., & Guild, P. (1984). Learning styles: The crucial differences. Curriculum Review,

23(1), pp. 9-12.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning styles: differences which the profwssion must address. In C.

Vacca and J. Maegher (Ed.), Reading through content. (pp. 232-235). Storrs, CT: The

University of Connecticut Press.

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics.

Tehran: Rahnama Publications.

House, A. (2004). Learner perceptions of willingness to communicate. Master Thesis,

Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland.

Hunt, D.E. (1981). Learning style and the interdependence of practice and theory. Phi Delta

Kappan, 62, p. 647.

Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), student learning

styles:Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National

Association of Secondary School Principals.

Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of

Secondary School Principals.

Kolb, D. A. (1976). The learning style inventory: self-scoring test and interpretation. Boston,

MA: McBer & Company.





Page | 74

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

MacIntyre, P.D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: a causal analysis.

Communication Research Reports, 11, 135–142.

MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,

social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.

MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L.A. (2003). Talking in order to learn:

willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 59 (4), 589–607.

MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness

to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern

Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT system: teaching to learning styles with right/left mode

techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.

McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.

McCroskey, J.C., & Baer, J.E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: the construct and its

measurement. In: Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech

Communication Association, Denver, CO.

McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In: McCroskey, J.C.,

& Daly, J.A. (Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication. Sage, Beverly Hills,

CA, pp. 129–156.

McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: a cognitive view. In:

Booth-Butterfield, M. (Ed.), Communication, Cognition, and Anxiety. Sage, Newbury

Park, CA, pp. 19–37.

Myers, I. & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: aguide to the development and use of the Myers-

Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Peng, J. (2006). Willingness to communicate in a L2 in the EFL classroom: Rich descriptions

from the Chinese university students. Review of Applied Linguistics in China, 3.





Page | 75

Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: situational influences on learning. In R. R. Shmeck

(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.159-184). New York: Plenum Press.

Reid, J.M (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-

111.

Riazi, A. & Riasati, M.J. (2005). Language learning style preferences: a students case study of

Shiraz EFL institutes. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 97-125.

Riding, R. & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton

Publishers .

Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In: Bailey, K., Nunan, D.

(Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge:, Cambridge University Press,

pp. 145–167.

Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult immigrant education. Research Series (Ed. David

Nunan). Australia: National Curriculum Research Center: Adult Migrant Education

Programme.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL

context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.

Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on

willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning

,54, 119–152.





Page | 76

Appendix 1

Table 7. T-Test analysis – WTC and gender

Groups N M SD t df F Sig P

Male 20 87.8000 17.79592 .039 46 0.002 .965

Female 28 87.6071 16.12070

-Significant

Table 8. T-Test analysis – kinesthetic style and gender

Groups N M SD t df F Sig P

Male 20 24.4000 6.15074 1.843 46 2.297 .072

Female 28 21.3929 5.13044

-Significant

Appendix 2

Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995)

For each item, circle your response, PLEASE:

0 = Never 1 = Rarely 2 = Sometimes 3 = Often 4 = Always





Page | 77





Page | 78

ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online) © 2016 Khate Sefid Press The ... · learning (Hatch & Farhady, 1981)....

Documents

Transcript of ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online) © 2016 Khate Sefid Press The ... · learning (Hatch & Farhady, 1981)....