1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Mathematics is considered as one difficult subject taught here in the

Philippines. This implies that students in various schools may have learning

difficulties in mathematics. There are many learning styles to be considered for

students in which these affect their learning behaviors in learning mathematics.

Learning styles are highly considered as one of the significant factors affecting the

learning behavior of the students in terms of academic achievements.

In the field of education, learners play a major role in the development

ofcurriculum. With this, there are many appropriate teaching methods and strategies

educators should take into consideration.

Bacay (2006) stated that educating students on their learning styles and

proper study strategies seems to improve examination scores and this empowers

their study techniques (as cited by Dodds, 2004). In addition, organizing well-

planned classroom interventions greatly influences students’ performances

including, but not limited to, their test performance.

 2

In school, students have their own different styles or strategies in learning.

Some may learn better through satisfying their pleasures first before studying to

regain concentration while learning. Another way is through adult guidance and

supervision in order to help students with their homework (Dunn & Dunn, 2014).

This incorporates setting various learning interventions with enhanced

accomplishment, practices, and demeanor towards learning. In addition, Felder and

Brent (2005) proposed that learning style hypotheses have been referred to as

successful means for helping educators perceive various needs of students in the

classroom.

Learning style plays a big role in teaching diverse students. It is somehow

one of the factors that helps teachers in facilitating learning inside the classroom.

Furthermore, some educators have been able to provide test instruments which

determine students’ learning style preferences before formal instruction.

On one side, Zapalska and Dabb (2002) found out that understanding how

students learn enhances the choice of strategies that are equipped to reinforce

learning. By considering how students learn, teachers can improve their teaching

abilities in the selection of best strategies that are tailored to students’ needs and

concerns.
 3

Krishna Bista (2011) as cited by Tatar (2005) suggested various methods for

managing quiet students’ in multicultural classroom setting. Teachers who have

students with diverse cultures should have effective strategies in facilitating learning.

It is because teaching strategies serve as indispensable factors that greatly affect

students’ confidence towards learning.

On one hand, Weimer (2012) believed that people have their own preferred

learning style. They learn from a variety of strategies and methods. More so, people

can learn through seeing, hearing, and doing what is thought and meant.

Reiner and Willingham (2012) confirmed that students’ learning styles should

be carefully considered and should not be underestimated in classroom’s formal

instruction. This suggests that teachers should assess their students’ learning styles

in order to be efficient in teaching and in giving appropriate feedback on students’

academic performance and so as to avoid wasting time, effort, and resources.

Every student has distinct culture and background. However, there are

identified learning styles which teachers can categorize their students on the basis of

their response to various interventions while learning in school.

 4

Review of Related Literature

The purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of the literature related

to all aspects of this research project. It examines various approaches in

understanding learning styles and its concept. In addition, this literature review

explores the relationship between the learning styles and the test performance of the

students. It is designed to address the issue of learning styles in an effort to meet

students’ needs more effectively.

Learning Styles

Collison (2000) mentioned that learning styles have been recognized as an

effective way in helping educators to provide the best they can for an incredibly

diverse need of the students. In fact, teachers in the present milieu are giving

importance in knowing the learning styles of their learners (as cited by Wilson,

2011).

There are various definitions that have been associated to learning styles.

Indeed, these different ways of learning were taken from prolific scholars and

educators.

Brown (2000) as cited by Gilakjani (2012) has defined learning style as how

individuals receive and process information from a particular task. In addition,

Fardon (2013) believed that learning style is a constant preference in which an

individual effectively processes and organizes information in any learning tasks.

 5

On one side, Vaishnav (2013) suggested that the meaning of learning style is

the ability of a learner to process and perceive information in a learning situation.

This implies that each individual follows a unique pattern in dealing with information.

Similarly, Cuaresma (2008) believed that learners learn in different ways. It is

guaranteed that people learn best when they are adapting in distinctive ways and

that they have diverse learning styles that work best for them (as cited by

Montemayor, 2009). Moreover, Junko (1998) confirmed that learners who have

diverse learning style preferences would act distinctively the way they receive,

connect, and react to the learning environment (as cited by Abidin, et. al., 2011).

Generally, learners have different attributes and ways of taking the

information and this depends on them how will they analyze and process it (Gunes,

2004). This means that students’ learning styles have different influences.

Consequently, because of different learning styles, it is very essential for

educators to know and study the way students receive and process information to

become more successful in their classes (Gilakjani, 2012).

The range of learning styles vary among individuals since it is not feasible to

limit the learning style preferences of the students in only one dimension. It may be

inappropriate to conclude that a student is only visual, auditory or kinesthetic

learner (Jhaish, 2010). This entails that students do not only focus in one learning

style but it varies according to their preferred way in receiving information in school.
 6

Determining students’ learning styles helps teachers to have effective and

efficient teaching strategies. Students have their own styles in the acquisition of

information. Gilakjani (2012) affirmed that the most popular styles include the

visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. He also pointed out that some students are visual

learners, while others are auditory or kinesthetic learners.

In addition, Thomas, L., et al. (n.d.) found out that visual, auditory and

kinesthetic learning style preferences are another way to examine the perspective

of learning.

Some researchers have used Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (VAK)

framework in identifying the learning style preferences of the students. The said

framework focuses on the preferred way of how an individual gathers, organizes

and analyzes information to be acquired (Martin et. al., 2011). On one hand, this

suggests that visual learners learned by considering what he or she sees, while

auditory learners learned by listening and hearing, and kinesthetic learners learned

by doing moving and touching things.

The following presents the various learning styles and their specific

characteristics used in this study.

Visual Learners. Individuals who fall under this classification tend to depict

things they see by their own eyes.These learners love visual supports, for example,

photographs, graphs, maps and diagrams (Ldpride.net, 2008).

 7

Kopsovich (2001) discussed that students whose learning preference is visual

usually prefer to read or observe material to be learned and visually recall the

information from illustrative or printed materials. Visual learners often prefer to take

down notes in order for them to absorb the given information (time4learning.com,

n.d. cited by Montemayor, 2009).

Auditory Learners. People under this category learn best and gain

knowledge through discussions, listening, and verbal lectures (Ldpride.net, 2008).

Students under this style prefer to read text loudly in order for them to understand

the topic well.

Kopsovich (2001) depicted auditory learners as perceptual component whose

essential learning inclination is listening to verbal instruction, for example,

discussions, talks or recordings. Speeches and poems are comprehended by the

students through listening to tone of voice, pitch and pace (time4learning.com, n.d.

cited by Montemayor, 2009).

Kinaesthetic Learners. These types of learners are learning through hands-

on activities. This implies that they learn best through moving, doing, carrying on

and touching. Projects that are involved in nature are best for kinaesthetic learners.

They appreciate direct investigations and performing task when they are more

involved with it (Ldpride.net, 2008). Furthermore, when these learners sit for a long

period of time, they may find difficulty in grasping the whole concept since it cannot

cater or maximize their potentials in exploring such task.

 8

Students with kinaesthetic inclination oblige entire body development and real

scenarios to assimilate and to hold materials to be learned (Kopsovich, 2001).These

learners learn most effectively when they are completely involved in the learning

procedures.

Test Performance

In the recent times, test performance has raised important questions for

educators and researchers. What are the factors affecting the test performance of

the students? How far does it affect the academic achievement of the learner?

Test performance is a capacity to excel in which each learner tries his or her

best to achieve his goals (Zargar, 2004).

Indeed, there have been many attempts made to enhance students’

academic achievement. Nowadays, educators are trying to make a solution to

address the problem of the students regarding their test performances. In relation to

this, teachers are convinced to deepen their strategy in order for them to know their

students learning preferences. Learning preferences are identified to determine

student’s strengths in achieving their academic success (Abidin, et.al., 2011).

Additionally, researchers are trying to address the problems regarding factors

affecting the test performance of the students (Damavandi, 2011).

 9

According to Sharma in 2011, we disregard the importance of identifying

students’ styles in grasping the concept at an earlier stage. Thus, it is vital for the

educators to focus their attention on the most favorite styles of the learners before

presenting the topic. If they failed to address the problems, it may lead to a serious

issue in the teaching- learning process.

Furthermore, Garth-Johnson and Price (2000) as cited by Gappi (2013)

found out that the academic achievement of the students and their learning style

preferences are strongly related with each other.

Chuah Cheng (1988) concluded that learners hold 10% of what they read,

26% of what they listen, 30% of what they see, half of what they see and listen,

70% of what they say, and 90% of what they say as they do something(as cited by

Abidin, et.al., 2011).

Furthermore, Lisle’s (2007) major findings using Visual, Auditory, and

Kinaesthetic (VAK) learning model revealed that 34% of the respondents preferred

a visual style and as well as for the auditory learners. For the remaining 23%, they

were kinaesthetic learners and 9% prefer to have multimodal preferences (as cited

by Ghaedi & Jam, 2014).

 10

In the study conducted by Abidin, et.al. (2011), confirmed that most

participants preferred visual and auditory learning styles. This is because students

are religious- oriented who characteristically taught verbal lectures specifically in

Islamic Studies. Also, they were disciplined with their visions in learning stimulus

like relying on written materials. But as a result of the study, he concluded that

combination of different learning style preferences was the most common among

the participants.

Pellón et al. (2013) confirmed that visual style was observed among the fifth

year medical students. He also concluded that the learning styles of the said

respondents in the field of ophthalmology do not affect their academic performance.

Jhaish (2010) agreed that there were no statistically significant correlation

coefficient between achievement, and visual, kinaesthetic, tactile, group learning,

and individual learning among the students.

In contrast, Vaishnav (2013) found out that kinaesthetic learning style was

dominant than visual and auditory learning style among secondary students. Thus,

there exists positive high correlation between kinaesthetic learning style and

academic achievement of students. He also suggested that teachers must find out

the learning style of his or her students for better learning.

On one side, Kopsovich (2001) affirmed that there was a relationship existed

between the Afro- American students’ preference to learn “kinaesthetically” and

their math achievement scores.

 11

On one hand, visual learning was the most prevalent learning style among the

highest performing students according to Martin et al. (2011). But he speculated

that there was no significant relationship between the learning style preferences

and academic performance of the learners. In contrast, Alumran (2008) as cited by

Gappi (2013) proposed that visual learning style was the most preferred learning

style among the Bahraini students and this was positively related to their academic

performance.

In addition, the study conducted by Kopsovich (2001) found out that there

was a significant relationship between the learning style and test performance

among fifth grade students of Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. It showed

that there was a relationship between how students exerted diligence in completing

difficult task or assignment and their academic scores.

In view of the fact that learners have their own learning style preferences,

Felder and Spurlin (2005) recommended that it is crucial for the teachers now to

scrutinize their learning styles since it helps them to be more responsive to

individual differences and distinct needs of the learners inside the classroom (as

cited by Abidin, et.al. (2011). With this, teachers must deeply look into their

teaching strategies in order to complement the different learning needs of the

students.
 12

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored to VAK Theory as cited by Ghaedi and Jam (2014)

which is considered as one of the classical learning theories in educational field. In

additional, the Federal Aviation Administration (2009) stressed out that students’

ways of acquiring visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning were based on a VAK

learning style. Furthermore, Miller (2001) illustrated that a VAK learning style refer to

the perceptual, instructional preference model which classifies learners by sensory

preferences.

Besides, it was supported by Garnett (2005) as cited by Saadi (2012) that this

theory was based on two learning theories: (a) the cognitive learning style and (b)

lateralization learning theory. The cognitive learning style suggested that individuals

organize information in different ways, in accordance to this was its basis of inherent

or learned attributes. On one hand, the benchmark of lateralization learning theory

was viewed as the right brain deals with emotions and spatial/holistic processing

while the left brain deals with verbal-sequential abilities.

This study explored the learning preferences in Mathematics of Grade 9

students in Tagum City National High School (TCNHS) wherein learning preferences

refer to styles that influence how students learn, how teachers teach, and how the

two interact with each other. In this study, “learning styles” refer to the methods that

best describe an individual’s preferences for acquiring information.

 13

The independent variable comprised the learning preferences of the students

whether they fall into the following learning styles: (a) visual learners who prefer

perceiving information and visualize things; (b) auditory learners who prefer

receiving or hearing information; and, (c) kinesthetic learners who prefer tomake

use of body movements and bodily sensations to learn.

The dependent variable was the test performance of the students in their third

periodical examination to be used in the study that would show or help determine the

relationship with the learning preferences of the respondents. The test performance

measures students’ skills based on authentic tasks such as activities, exercises or

problems that require students to show what they can do. Test performance in this

study was used to gather information about the students’ performance in

mathematics if learning preferences influence it. Figure 1 illustrates the research

variables.

As a whole, the independent variable included the learning preference which

includes the Visual Learners, Auditory Learners and Kinesthetic Learners (VAK)

while the dependent variable comprised the test performance of the third periodical

exam of the students.

 14

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Learning Preferences(VAK) Test Performance

 Visual Learners  3rd periodical exam of

 Auditory Learners the students in Tagum

 Kinesthetic Learners City National High

School (TCNHS)

Figure 1: The conceptual framework of the study

 15

Statement of the Problem

The main concern of the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the level of learning preferences among Grade 9 students of Tagum

City National High School (TCNHS) in terms of:

a. Visual

b. Auditory

c. Kinesthetic

2. What is the level of test performance among Grade 9 students of Tagum City

National High School (TCNHS)?

3. Is there a significant relationship between the level of learning preferences

and test performance among Grade 9 students of Tagum City National High

School (TCNHS)?

Hypothesis

In order to address the research questions, the research hypothesis will be

tested at 0.05 level of significance. Below is the hypothesis:

1. There is no significant relationship between the learning style preferences

and the test performance of the Grade 9 students’ of Tagum City National

High School (TCNHS).

 16

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

This chapter presents the methods used in gathering and analyzing data

which includes: research design, respondents, research instrument, the process of

gathering the data and the statistical tool.

Research Design

This quantitative research used a descriptive-correlational method. The

descriptive method included gathering of information to determine the level of

learning style preferences of the students. In addition, correlational method was

employed to establish if there is a relationship between learning style preferences

and test performance of Grade 9 students of Tagum City National High School

(TCNHS).

Respondents

The respondents of the study were the Grade 9 students of Tagum City

National High School S.Y. 2014 – 2015 because they already took the lesson on

Quadrilaterals in which it was based in meeting the standards set of the curriculum

guide for they are expected to manifests their understanding and key concepts on

Quadrilaterals.
 17

From 20 sections in Grade 9 level, the researchers employed purposive

sampling in choosing two sections from regular sections to represent the group and

employed random sampling in choosing two sections which are: Falcata and

Manggis. For section Falcata 32 respondents are male and 18 respondents are

female with a total of 50 respondents. On the other hand, section Manggis got 42

respondents which are male and 8 respondents are female with a total of 50

respondents. The overall total of respondents in two sections is 100. Table 1 shows

the distribution of the Respondents.

Table 1. Distribution of the respondents

Respondents Male Female TOTAL

Falcata 32 18 50
Manggis 42 8 50
TOTAL 74 26 100

Research Instrument

The researchers used the instrument adapted from Conquering Math Anxiety

(2010) by Dr. Cynthia A. Arem. This has been used to assess students’ learning

preferences in Mathematics. The learning style inventory was a 30-item Likert Scale

that produces a score based on frequencies which are: always (3), sometimes (2)

and never (1) for each of three learning style elements namely: visual, auditory and

kinesthetic. Each indicator had 10-item statements each. These items were
 18

randomly arranged in the questionnaire. The respondents should answer to each

statement on a 3-point Likert Scale. Table 2 presents the categorization of items that

Table 2. Categorization of items for each learning style found in the instrument

Indicators Items number

Visual 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, and 28
Auditory 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, and 29
Kinesthetic 3, 6, 9, 12,15, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30
represent various learning styles.

Data Gathering Procedure

In gathering the data the researchers followed the following procedure:

The researchers gave parents’ consent to each student for two selected

sections. This was followed as part of approval or protocol from the principal to

conduct the study.

The letter of permission was noted by practicum supervisor and sent to the

principal to ask permission to administer the learning style inventory, which includes

100 parents’ consent equal to the number of respondents.

The researchers asked permission to the cooperating teacher for the scores

obtained in one of their examinations assuring that the respondents and their

obtained scores are treated with confidentiality.

 19

Upon approval, the researchers administered the learning style inventory to

two selected sections in Grade 9 to identify the student’s level of learning style

preferences.

The data was collected and categorized through frequency counts and was

analyzed through mean, averages, and percentages. The primary data was tested

for correlationthrough students’ scores on their test performance and results from

learning style inventory.

Statistical Tool

In analyzing the data, statistical tools were utilized:

Mean. This was used to answer the first statement of the problem about what is the

level of learning style preference of Grade 9 students in Tagum City National High

School.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r). This was chosen for this

study to allow the researchers in examining the relationship between learning style

preferences of Grade 9 students and their scores obtain in their test performance. If

the p value will be equal to 0.05 then it signifies that the correlation between

respondents’ learning styles and their test performance is statistically significant.

The responses of the respondents in each indicator of the test used the

following parameter limit that includes range of means, descriptive equivalent and

interpretation. Table 3 summarizes the entire parameter and interpretation of results.

 20

Table 3. Range of means, the descriptive equivalent, and its interpretation

Range of Descriptive
Interpretation
Means Equivalent
This means that the item/statement is very
2.60 – 3. 00 Very High much preferred by the students in learning
Quadrilaterals.

2.20 – 2.59 High This means that the item/statement is preferred

by the students in learning Quadrilaterals.

This means that the item/statement is

1.80 – 2.19 Moderate
occasionally preferred by the students in
learning Quadrilaterals.

This means that the item/statement is seldom

1.40 – 1.79 Low
preferred by the students in learning
Quadrilaterals.

This means that the item/statement is never

1.00 – 1.39 Very Low
preferred by the students in learning
Quadrilaterals.
 21

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the results of the gathered data about the learning

styles of the Grade 9 students from Tagum City National High School (TCNHS) in

relationship to their test performance.

This chapter presents tabulation of the overall result of the mean of three

learning styles; the mean value of each item sorted by type of learning styles; and

the table which presents the relationship of students’ learning style preferences and

their test performance.

Level of Students’ Learning Style Preference in terms of Visual Learning

Table 4 illustrates the result of overall mean for each statement for visual

learning style. The statement Looking at my Math teacher when he or she is

lecturing helps me to stay focused have the highest mean of 2.52 with high

descriptive equivalent; Remembering Math better if I write it down and Writing down

all the solutions and formulas in order to remember them have both the same mean

of 2.44 with high descriptive equivalent; Preferring to study Math in a quiet place

have the mean of 2.38 with high descriptive equivalent; Getting easily distracted or

having difficulty in understanding in math class when there is talking or noise have a

mean of 2.34 with high descriptive equivalent.

 22

Followed by the statement Seeing it in my mind’s eyes is necessary to

understand what is being asked of me have the mean of 2.30 with high descriptive

equivalent; Enjoying in writing down as much as I can in math have the mean 2.26

with high descriptive equivalent; Understanding Math when someone explains it

without writing it down have the mean of 2.19 with moderate descriptive equivalent;

Seeing in my mind often, the page in my notes or in the text where the explanations

or answers are located have the mean of 2.12 with moderate descriptive equivalent

and lastly is the statement Picturing when working a problem out in my mind helps

have the lowest mean of 2.05 with moderate descriptive equivalent.

Overall mean have 2.31 with high descriptive equivalent. In most of the mean

in visual, item numbers 1, 4, 13, 16, 22, 25, 28 have high descriptive equivalents

which signify that the item stated earlier were preferred by the students in learning

Quadrilaterals. On the other hand, item numbers 7, 10, and 19 belongs to the mean

with moderate descriptive equivalent which denotes that it is seldom preferred by the

students in learning Quadrilaterals. This outcome denotes the respondents who

undertake the test do preferred in the item/ statements indicated above. Moreover,

this result implies that learners learn the lesson effectively if the students will have to

use his senses specifically his eyesight that he/she must see tangible things, like

seeing his/her Math teacher to sustain his/her concentration in learning the subject

matter. The result is supported by Martin. et.al (2011) that visual learning was the

most prevalent learning style among the highest performing students.

 23

Table 4. Level of students’ learning style preference in terms of visual learning

Item Learning Styles Descriptive
Mean
Number (VISUAL) Interpretation
1 Remembering Math better if I write it down. 2.44 High

4 Preferring to study Math in a quiet place. 2.38 High

Understanding Math when someone explains it

7 2.19 Moderate
without writing it down.
Picturing when working a problem out in my
10 2.05 Moderate
mind helps.
Enjoying in writing down as much as I can in
13 2.26 High
math.
Writing down all the solutions and formulas in
16 2.46 High
order to remember them.
Seeing in my mind often, the page in my notes
19 or in the text where the explanations or 2.12 Moderate
answers are located.
Getting easily distracted or having difficulty in
22 understanding in math class when there is 2.34 High
talking or noise.
Looking at my math teacher when he or she is
25 2.52 High
lecturing helps me to stay focused.
Seeing it in my mind’s eyes is necessary to
28 2.30 High
understand what is being asked of me.
Overall Mean 2.31 High
Legend:
RANGE OF MEANS DESCRIPTION
2.60 – 3. 00 Very High
2.20 – 2.59 High
1.80 – 2.19 Moderate
1.40 – 1.79 Low
1.00 – 1.39 Very Low
 24

In addition, Alumran (2008) as cited by Gappi (2013), visual learning style

was the most preferred learning style among the Bahraini students and this was

positively related to their academic performance.

 25

Level of Students’ Learning Style Preference in Terms of Auditory Learning

Table 5 illustrates the result of overall mean for each statement for auditory. The

statement Wishing my Math teachers would lecture more and write less on the board

have the highest mean of 2.48 with high descriptive equivalent; Explaining Math to

me will help me learn faster have the mean of 2.37 with high descriptive equivalent;

Repeating the numbers to myself when mentally working out Math problems have

the mean of 2.27 with high descriptive equivalent; Working a Math problem gets

easier if I talk myself through the problems as I solve it have the mean of 2.25 with

high descriptive equivalent; Learning best from a lecture and worst from the

whiteboard or textbook have the mean of 2.20 with high descriptive equivalent;

Remembering more of what is said to me than what I see have the mean of 2.19

with moderate descriptive equivalent; Reading explanations in Math book won’t do

for me; I’d rather have someone to explain the new material to me have the mean of

2.13 with moderate descriptive equivalent; Having difficulty following written

solutions on the board unless the teacher verbally explains all the steps have the

mean of 2.12 with moderate descriptive equivalent; Tiring gets easily when I read

Math thought my eyes are okay have the mean of 2.11 with moderate descriptive

equivalent and lastly, Hating to take notes; I prefer just to listen to lectures have the

lowest mean of 1.91 with moderate descriptive equivalent. Overall mean for Auditory

is 2.21 which denotes high descriptive equivalent.

 26

Table 5. Level of students’ learning style preference in terms of auditory learning

Item Learning Styles Descriptive
Mean
Number (AUDITORY) Interpretation
2 Learning best from a lecture and worst 2.20 High
from the whiteboard or textbook.
5 Hating to take notes; I prefer just to listen to 1.91 Moderate
lectures.
Having difficulty following written solutions
8 on the board unless the teacher verbally 2.12 Moderate
explains all the steps.
11 Remembering more of what is said to me 2.19 Moderate
than what I see.
14 Explaining Math to me will help me learn 2.37 High
faster.
Reading explanations in Math book won’t
17 do for me; I’d rather have someone to 2.13 Moderate
explain the new material to me.
20 Tiring gets easily when I read Math thought 2.11 Moderate
my eyes are okay.
23 Wishing my Math teachers would lecture 2.49 High
more and write less on the board.
26 Repeating the numbers to myself when 2.27 High
mentally working out Math problems.

29 Working a Math problem gets easier if I talk 2.25 High

myself through the problems as I solve it.

Over-all Mean 2.21 High

Legend:
RANGE OF MEANS DESCRIPTION
2.60 – 3. 00 Very High
2.20 – 2.59 High
1.80 – 2.19 Moderate
1.40 – 1.79 Low
1.00 – 1.39 Very Low
 27

The first five items have high descriptive equivalents which imply that the

students’ prefer the first five items in learning Quadrilaterals and the last five items

signifies that it is seldom preferred by the students in learning Quadrilaterals.

According to Kopsovich (2001) proposed that auditory learners as

perceptual component whose essential learning inclination is listening to verbal

instruction, for example, discussions, talks or recordings. Speeches and poems are

comprehended by the students through listening to tone of voice, pitch and pace

(time4learning.com, n.d. cited by Montemayor , 2009).

 28

Level of Students’ Learning Style Preferences in terms of Kinesthetic Learning

Table 6 illustrates the result of overall mean for each statement for auditory.

The statements Enjoying in figuring out Math games and Math puzzles when I learn

Math have the mean of 2.39 with high descriptive equivalent;

Learning Math best if I can practice it in real-life experiences have the mean

of 2.37 with high descriptive equivalent; Learning best in Math when I just get in and

do something with my hands have the mean of 2.24 with high descriptive

equivalent; Preferring to use intuition to solve Math problems, to feel or sense

what’s right have the mean of 2.23 with high descriptive equivalent; Learning Math

best when I can manipulate or use hands-on examples have the mean of 2.20 with

high descriptive equivalent; Showing how to do a problem won’t do for me; I must

doing it myself so I can learn have the mean of 2.17 with moderate descriptive

equivalent; Taking lots of breaks and moving around when I study Math have the

mean of 2.12 with moderate descriptive equivalent; Learning and studying Math

gets better when I can pace the floor, shift positions, tap my pencil etc. and

Explaining verbally how I solved a Math problem won’t usually do for me have the

equal mean of 2.11 with moderate descriptive equivalent and lastly, Using my

fingers to figure out Math have the mean of 2.03 with moderate descriptive

equivalent.
 29

Table 6. Level of students’ learning style preference in terms of kinesthetic

learning

Item Learning Styles Descriptive

Mean
Number (KINESTHETIC) Interpretation
Learning best in Math when I just get in
3 2.24 High
and do something with my hands.
Learning and studying Math gets better
6 when I can pace the floor, shift positions, 2.11 Moderate

tap my pencil etc.

Learning Math best when I can manipulate
9 2.20 High
or use hands-on examples.
Explaining verbally how I solved a Math
12 2.11 Moderate
problem won’t usually do for me.
Showing how to do a problem won’t do for
15 2.17 Moderate
me; I must doing it myself so I can learn.
18 Usingmy fingers to figure out Math. 2.03 Moderate
Taking lots of breaks and moving around
21 2.12 Moderate
when I study Math.
Preferring to use intuition to solve Math
24 2.23 High
problems, to feel or sense what’s right.
Enjoying in figuring out Math games and
27 2.39 High
Math puzzles when I learn Math.
Learning Math best if I can practice it in
30 2.37 High
real-life experiences.
Over-all Mean 2.20 High
Legend:
RANGE OF MEANS DESCRIPTION
2.60 – 3. 00 Very High
2.20 – 2.59 High
1.80 – 2.19 Moderate
1.40 – 1.79 Low
1.00 – 1.39 Very Low
 30

Overall mean have 2.20 with high descriptive equivalent. Similar with auditory

in kinesthetic, the first five items have high descriptive equivalents which imply that

the students’ prefer the first five items in learning Quadrilaterals and the last five

items signifies that it is seldom preferred by the students in learning Quadrilaterals.

Vaishnav (2013) found out that Kinaesthetic Learning Style dominant than

Visual and Auditory Learning Style among secondary students. Students with

kinaesthetic inclination oblige entire body development and/or real scenarios to

assimilate and to hold materials to be learned. (Kopsovich, 2001). Hence, these

learners learn most effectively when they are completely involved in the learning

procedure.
 31

Summary of Results on the Level of Learning Style Preferences

Based on the tables presented earlier, learning styles (visual, auditory, and

kinesthetic) have different mean value obtained based on indicator, for those who

prefer on visual have the mean of 2.31 which denotes high average.

On the other hand, the items identifying for auditory learner have the mean of

2.21 which denotes high average. And lastly, for those who prefer on kinesthetic

have the mean of 2.20 which denotes high average. With these given results, in

terms of their average the three learning styles have indicated similar range of

means from 2.20 to 2.59 which denotes a high average. Based on the results

obtained, this implies that students have utilized various learning styles in learning

the subject matter.

In order to determine the level of learning style preferences of the students,

the mean of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic questions were computed and are

shown in Table 7.

The result is somewhat similar to Lisle’s (2007) findings as cited by Ghaedi

and Jam (2014), stated that using VAK learning model, it showed that 34% of the

respondents preferred a visual style and as well as for the auditory learners. For the

remaining 23%, they were kinaesthetic learners and 9% prefer to have multimodal

preferences.
 32

Tab Table 7. (Summary) Level of learning style preference

Learning Styles Mean Scale

VISUAL 2.31 High

AUDITORY 2.21 High

KINESTHETIC 2.20 High

Legend:

RANGE OF MEANS DESCRIPTION

2.60 – 3. 00 Very High
2.20 – 2.59 High
1.80 – 2.19 Moderate
1.40 – 1.79 Low
1.00 – 1.39 Very Low
 33

Level of Learning Style Preferences and Test Performance

Table 8 represents the significance of the relationship between the level of

learning style preferences and test performance of Grade 9 students of Tagum City

National High School. For Visual, the r – value have 0.038 and the p - value have

0.706 which resulted to no significant relationship between two variables.

For Auditory, the r – value have 0.029 and the p - value have 0.776 which

resulted to no significant relationship between two variables.

For Kinesthetic, the r – value have 0.029 and the p - value have 0.776 which

resulted to no significant relationship between two variables. Thus, the null

hypothesis is accepted stated in Chapter 1 of this research.

Jhaish (2010) suggested that there were no statistically significant correlation

coefficient between achievement, and visual, kinaesthetic, tactile, group learning,

and individual learning among the students. Furthermore, Martin et al. (2011)

concluded that there was no significant relationship between the learning style

preferences and academic performance of the learners.

In contrast, the study conducted by Kopsovich (2001), a significant

relationship was shown between the learning style and test performance among

fifth grade students of Texas Assessment of Academic Skills.

 34

Table 8. Significant relationship between level of learning styles and test

performance

INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT
r -value p - value DECISION
VARIABLE VARIABLE

Learning Style
0.038 0.706 Not Significant
(Visual) (X1)

Learning Style Test Performance

0.029 0.776 Not Significant
(Auditory) (X2) (Y)

Learning Style
0.1614 0.1106 Not Significant
(Kinesthetic) (X3)
 35

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and suggestions

for further research.

Summary

The general aim of this study was to identify the level of Grade 9 students’

learning style preferences as they acquire knowledge in mathematics. This study

was interested to determine its significant relationship to their test performance.

A survey design was used to determine students’ learning styles using

learning style inventory and the scores of the respondents in their test performance

were considered as the required primary data of this study.

In data analysis and interpretation, the researchers used descriptive statistics

(i.e. averages, mean and percentages) in order to determine students’ learning

styles. This study employed correlation to investigate the relationship between the

two variables identified earlier.

Major findings revealed the level of learning style preferences of Grade 9

students, this enumerates the following: (a) visual with a mean of 2.31; (c) auditory

with a mean of 2.21; and (c) kinesthetic with a mean of 2.20.

 36

Furthermore, there is no significant relationship between students’ learning

style preferences and students’ test performance.Results are as follows:

(a) Visual – r-value (0.038) and p-value (0.706)

(b) Auditory – r-value (0.029) and p-value (0.776)

(c) Kinesthetic – r-value (0.029) and p-value (0.776).

All indicated p-values are greater than 0.05 significance level.

Conclusions

From the results of this study, the researchers came up with the following

conclusions:

1. The respondents of this study showed preferences of the three learning styles

since the computed means for each learning style category indicated a high

descriptive equivalent. Based on the computed results, this implies that

students have used various learning styles on the subject matter.

2. This correlational study found out that there is no relationship between the

level of learning style preference and test performance of Grade 9 students.

This possibly means that the students do not prefer a single learning style

alone at varied occasions.

 37

Recommendations

From this study, the researchers recommend best practices on teaching

strategies and learning preferences to the following:

Tagum City National High School. The institution should provide various

programs that will reinforce the multiple intelligences of the student. In addition, they

should devise learning activities that would help teachers in applying learning

opportunities for the students.

Teachers. As a recommendation, educators should thoroughly assess the

students’learning style preferences and consider it in devising teaching strategies to

achieve the competencies set by DepEd. Moreover, they should provide a variety of

activities wherein the students can engage themselves to various opportunities in

honing their intelligence and talents. This implies that they should adhere to different

teaching principles that will guide them in facilitating diverse learning needs of the

students.

Students. This study suggests that students should engage in various

learning activities most especially those that require their mental, physical and other

abilities in conceptualizing ideas and for them to get familiar with their learning

strategies.

Future Researchers. This study recommends future researchers to evaluate

various teaching strategies that will help the students develop their metacognitive

skills to enhance their test performance.

 38
Rationale: The study is about determining the relationship between level of learning preferences and test performance of Grade
9 students of Tagum City National High School. The findings showed that the level of learning preferences in terms of visual,
auditory and kinesthetic has high descriptive equivalent. Moreover, the results connotes that there is no significant relationship
between students’ learning preference and test performance. Hence, the researchers recommend activities that will help
stakeholders in developing students’ cognition in order to boost their test performance.
Person’s Budgetary Time
Activity Objectives Expected outputs
Involved Requirement Frame
 Teacher’s well-planned and
 Engage teachers in
organized learning activities
effective planning and
addressing the diverse  Principal
organizing of learning
learning styles of the  Teachers
activities to the
students.  DepEd
Teachers school.
 Teachers’ will develop and Php 10,000.00 1 day
Seminars/Workshop  Strengthen the Officials
designed more effective
Training techniques and
techniques and strategies
strategies of teachers
that suits to the skills and
in teaching.
abilities of the students.
 Determine the
preferred learning Once
 Teachers’ will have students  Production of
styles of the students;
Conducting  Teachers materials and every
 Create learning learning profiles.
Learning Style  Students photocopies school
activities that
Inventory - Php 4,000 year
enhance student’s
abilities and skills.
 Students identify the different
 Identify different kinds kinds of quadrilaterals;
of Quadrilaterals;  The students were able to  Recyclable
Math Fest (including  State the properties of state the following properties materials and
exhibit Quadrilaterals; of quadrilaterals.  Teachers Php 1,000 Once a
 Apply quadrilaterals in  The students will construct  Students for other year
on Quadrilateral)
real-life. quadrilaterals made up of materials
recyclable materials.
 39

Bibliography

Abidin, M.J.et.al.(2011). Learning Style and Overall Academic Achievement in

Specific Educational System. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from
http://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_10_August_2011/19.pdf
Al- Hebaishi, S. M.(2012). Investigating the Realtionships between Learning Styles,
Strategies and the Academic Performance of Saudi English Majors. Retrieved
March 5, 2015 from http://www.iijoe.org/volume1/IIJE_05_i8_v1_2012.pdf
Arem Ph.D., C. A. (2010). Conquering Math Anxiety. Retrieved March 5, 2015,
from https://www.tacomacc.edu
Bacay, M.S. (2006, April). Teaching Students with Different Learning Styles.
Retrieved March 22, 2015, from google.com: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu .sg/
brief/ v9n1/sec6.htm
Bista, K. (2011, June). Education of Silence for Educators in the Multicultural
Classroom. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from google.com :http://www.
facultyfocus .com/ articles/ learning-styles/ implications – of – silence – for -
educators – in – the - multicultural-classroom/.
Corpuz, B.B., Ph.D. & Salandanan, G.G., Ph.D. (2013).“Principles of Teaching 1” .
LolimarPublishing, Inc. & Adriana Printing Co., Inc. pg. 15-16.
Damavandi, A. J.(2011). Academic Achievement of Students with Different Learning
Styles. Retrieved March 15, 2015 from
https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&c
ad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.ccsenet.org%2
Fjournal%2Findex.php%2Fijps%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F13343%2F9209&
ei=BnIPVdrDM4u0uQTzzYGABA&usg=AFQjCNEv6FfuyK22c5I3VUOW7TS3
1GfYbA&bvm=bv.88528373,d.c2E
Dunn, R. (2009). The International Learning Style Network. RetrievedMarch
22, 2015, from google. com: http://www.learningstyles.net/da/about- us.
Farfon, M.(2013). Relationships between students’ learning style preference and
exam achievement in differing forms of assessment during an advanced
apprenticeship at a vocational Further Education College. Retrieved March 8,
2015 from https://www.ifl.ac.uk/media/897442/2013_Mark-Fardon-PRP-
article.pdf
Gappi, L. L.(2013). Relationships between Learning Style Preferences and
Academic Performance of Students. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from
http://soeagra.com/ijert/ijertjune2013/11.pdf
 40

Ghaedi, Zahra & Jam, Bashir (2014).”Relationship between Learning Styles and
Motivation for Higher Education in EFL Students”. Retrieved March 21,
2015 from http://www.ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/tpls/article/
viewFile/tpls040612381242/9413.

Gilakjani, A. P.(2012). Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and their

Impacts on English Language Teaching. Retrieved March 2, 2015 from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v2il.1007

Gunes C. (2004). Learning Style Preferences of Preparatory School Students at

Gazi University. Retrieved February 20, 2015 from
http://etd.metu.edu.tr/upload/12605465/index.pdf
Jhaish M. A. (2010). The Relationship among Learning Styles, Language Learning
Strategies, and the Academic Achievement among the English Majors at Al-
Aqsa University. Retrieved March 2, 2015 from
http://library.iugaza.edu.ps/thesis/90213.pdf
Kopsovish, R. D.(2001). A Study of Correlations Between Learning Styles of
Students and Their Mathemarics Scores on the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills Test. Retrieved from March 2, 2015 from
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc2889/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertati
on.pdf
Ldpride.net.(2008). Understanding Your Learning Styles. Retrieved March 5, 2015
from http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.mi.html
Martin, H.et.al.(2011). Leadership, Learning Styles and Academic Performance of
Undergraduate Engineering Students in Trinidad. Retrieved March 7, 2015
fromhttp://www.sefi.be/wp-content/papers2011/T7/66.pdf
Montemayor, E. et.al.(2009). Learning Styles of High and Low Academic Achieving
Freshman Teacher Education Students: An Application of the Dunn and Dunn’
Learning Style Model. Retrieved March 7. 2015 from
http://www.eisrjc.com/documents/Learning_Styles_Of_High_And_Low_Acade
mic_Achieving_Freshman_1325667415.pdf
Pellón, M.et.al.(2013). Relationship between Learning Styles and Academic
Performance of Fifth Graders Enrolled in the Medical Course. Retrieved
March 5, 2015 from http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0034-
72802013000300008&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
Reiner, C., Willingham D. (2010). The Myth of Learning Styles.Retrieved March 22,
2015 from google.com: http://www.changemag.org /archives/back%20
issues / september-october%202010/the-myth-of-learning-full.html
 41

Saadi, Ibrahim Abdu (2012).“An Examination of the Learning styles of Saudi

Preparatory School Students who are high or Low in Reading
Achievement”.Retrieved March 21, 2015 from
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/19421/1/Ibrahim_Abdu_Saadi.pdf.
Sharma, P.(2011). A Study of Learning- Thinking Style of Secondary School
Students in Relation to their Academic Achievement. Retrieved March 5, 2015
from http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/12._sharma.pdf
Thomas, L.et. al. (n.d).Learning Styles and Performance in the Introductory
Programming Sequence. Retrieved March 5, 2015 from
http://csta.villanova.edu/CITIDEL/bitstream/10117/196/6/ThomasLA.pdf
Vaishnav, R. S.(2013).Learning Style and Academic Achievement of Secondary
School Students. Retrieved March7, 2015 from
http://www.voiceofresearch.org/doc/mar-2013/Mar-2013_1.pdf
Weimer, M. PhD. (2012, March) Challenging the Notion of Learning Styles.
Retrieved March 22, 2015 from google.com: http:// www. .faculty
focus.com / articles / learning - styles/ challenging– the- notion-of-
learning-styles/
Wilson, M.L. (2011, November). Students’ Learning Style Preferences and
Teachers’ Instructional Strategies: Correlations between Matched
Styles and Academic Achievement. Retrieved March 22, 2015
google.com: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1504&context=doctoral
Zargar, S.S.(2014). Self – Concept, Learning Styles, Study Habits and Academic
Achievement of Adolescents in Kashmir: A study on Psychological variables
and academic achievement of adolescents in Kashmir. Retrieved March 5,
2015 from http://www.anchor-publishing.com/e-book/287499/self-concept-
learning-styles-study-habits-and-academic-achievement
42