J Psycholinguist Res

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9578-3

The Influence of Learning Style on English Learning

Achievement Among Undergraduates in Mainland China

Fang Huang1,2 · Cathy Ka Weng Hoi2 · Timothy Teo2

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Learning style is one of the main factors that determines how students learn
English and has a significant influence on students’ learning strategy selection, which further
affects their learning outcomes (Ehrman and Oxford in Mod Lang J 74(3):311–327, 1990;
Oxford in Language learning styles and strategies: an overview, 2003. http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/
~language/workshop/read2.pdf). This study examines the learning style preferences of Chi-
nese university students and whether those preferences influence their English achievements.
Four hundred undergraduates from one university in eastern mainland China participated in
this study. Data from 329 valid questionnaires were analysed. The results revealed that the
Chinese university students preferred the visual learning style the most, followed by the
auditory and kinaesthetic styles. However, no learning style preference was found to influ-
ence the students’ English proficiency. Cultural reasons are discussed to explain the findings,
which contradict those of previous studies of learning style theories and practices. This study
recommends that Chinese scholars consider issues of English teaching and learning in China
and to adopt appropriate teaching methods to effectively improve English teaching.

Keywords Learning style · English achievement · Chinese undergraduates · Culture

B Cathy Ka Weng Hoi

[email protected]
Fang Huang
[email protected]
Timothy Teo
[email protected]
1 School of Foreign Languages, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China
2 Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau, China

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Introduction

Language learning is a complex adaptive system that comprises dynamic interactions between
language, agents and the environment (Beckner et al. 2009). Researchers have found that
many factors influence language learning. These include external factors such as the learning
environment and professional and educational guidance (Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi 2013)
and internal factors such as the individual learner’s motivation (Oxford and Shearin 1994),
attitude (Masgoret 2003) and personal engagement (Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi 2013). Indi-
vidual differences (IDs) have been found to affect language teaching and learning outcomes
(Dörnyei 2005; Ellis 2012). Particularly, Sun and Teng (2017) noted the importance of teach-
ers’ awareness of students’ learning style on their learning process. Researchers have posited
that when teachers are aware of learners’ IDs, they tend to adjust their teaching strategies in
effective ways to better meet learners’ individual needs (Sadeghi et al. 2012).
According to Ehrman et al. (2003), IDs generally relate to learning aptitude, culture and
demographic variables such as gender and age. They can be classified into three areas: learn-
ing styles, learning strategies and affective variables (e.g., motivation, self-efficacy, anxiety,
empathy and interaction between learners and instructors) (Ehrman et al. 2003). Learning
styles significantly influence learners’ strategy choices (Ehrman and Oxford 1990) and affec-
tive factors, in that an awareness of learning styles helps learners to convey their preferences
to instructors, thus facilitating the interactions between teachers and instructors and learners’
self-efficacy while reducing learning anxiety (Ehrman and Oxford 1990). Therefore, learning
styles remain the key elements that determine language learning outcomes (Oxford 2003).
Scott (2010) asserted that learning styles are a widely used method for discerning and clas-
sifying students’ IDs. They refer to how individuals acquire, retain and retrieve information
(Bailey et al. 2000). Learning styles also explain how an individual processes information
(Naserieh and Sarab 2013), and act as a mechanism through which learners deal with dif-
ficulties and challenges in their learning (Barmeyer 2004). However, studies of learning
styles have mainly focused on identifying students’ learning style preferences (e.g., Naserieh
and Sarab 2013), cross-cultural comparisons of learners with different cultural backgrounds
(Reid 1987), relationships between learning style characteristics and learning environments
(Dörnyei 2009) and adjusting teaching methods to suit learners’ learning styles (Ford and
Chen 2001). Empirical research investigating the influence of learning style preferences on
learning outcomes, which is the aim of this current study, is still insufficient (Zhang and
Evans 2013).
Currently, learning styles research in second language acquisition (SLA) is inconclusive
(Ellis 2008). Relatively few general conclusions have been drawn on learning styles (Ellis
1994). Researchers have found a weak relationship between learning styles and second lan-
guage (L2) achievement (Ellis 2008). Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that learners differ
in how they prefer to be presented with information, process information, and acquire new
information (Hatami 2012). Advocates of learning styles assessment in language education
such as Sternberg et al. (2008) believe that learning styles are valuable teaching tools that can
inform language teaching and learning by matching individual learning styles and teaching
methods.
Most researchers have focused on defining and classifying models (Oxford 1993; Scott
2010) and the influence that learning styles have on teachers’ strategy choices (Ehrman
and Oxford 1989; Oxford and Ehrman 1988) compared with learners’ agency (Dörnyei
2009). Studying learners’ agency is important, as it is a key element in language learning
in addition to the target language itself and the environment (Beckner et al. 2009). The

123
J Psycholinguist Res

influence that learning style has on language learning achievements reveals the concerted
importance of examining language learners’ learning style preferences (Oxford 2003). As
one of the main individual factors behind researchers’ concerns in studies of English as
a foreign language (EFL), individual learners’ learning styles determine how they learn
and influence their selection of learning strategies, further affecting their learning outcomes
(Ehrman and Oxford 1990; Oxford and Ehrman 1988; Reid 1987). In addition, the precise
determination of a learner’s learning style effectively helps teachers to assist the individual
learner by designing and adjusting teaching strategies that meet the learner’s needs. Therefore,
without an awareness of individual learners’ learning styles, teachers are likely to adopt
inappropriate teaching methods that decrease students’ learning motivations and enthusiasm,
thereby limiting the students’ learning outcomes (Oxford 2003).
Individuals within a culture tend to have common patterns of learning (Oxford and Ander-
son 1995). Affected by Western individualist culture, learners and instructors in the West (e.g.,
America) respect IDs. Learners are very competitive and open to challenges from authority
(e.g., knowledge and teachers). They prefer kinaesthetic or experiential learning rather than
rote memory learning. They are also accustomed to explicit verbal communication in the
learning process (Cagiltay and Bichelmeyer 2000; Reid 1987). Chinese learners, on the other
hand, are distinctively different from Western learners in that they are passive, compliant
and obedient. They tend to accept knowledge without questioning and rely on rote memory
learning. They tend to lack critical thinking skills (e.g., Biggs 1991; Chen 2009; Reid 1987)
and are strong visual and auditory learners (Reid 1987; Zhang and Evans 2013).
Despite the IDs in learning style preferences between Chinese and Western language
learners noted by Reid (1987), Chinese language learners’ visual and auditory preferences
could be fostered by the traditional-authority-oriented language teaching and learning in
China. In particular, lecture and textbooks formed the central source of knowledge for Chinese
learners who passively recited what they saw and heard (Melton 1990; Zhang and Evans
2013). In addition, students relied on rote learning, memorisation, and repetition as their
prevalent learning methods (Huang and Brown 2009), which was driven by the traditional
language testing requirements that emphasised listening and reading skills. However, later
studies have presented contradictory findings on the learning styles of Chinese learners.
Wang (1992) found that Chinese university English majors showed a preference for the
kinaesthetic learning style; they perceived learning as taking place in the performance of
physical activities, rather than in listening to lectures (auditory) or watching demonstrations
(visual). In the context of English language learning, Gan et al. (2004) found that Chinese
learners displayed overall positive attitudes towards self-directed learning, contrary to the
stereotyped notion of Chinese students being passive learners.

Problem Statement and the Need for This Study

The inconsistency of Chinese learners’ learning style preferences and the lack of empirical
studies of the influence that learning styles have on learning outcomes show the need for this
study to re-examine Chinese learners’ learning style preferences and whether learning styles
relate to learning outcomes.
Students’ learning style preferences have been well researched in the West and covered a
variety of issues, such as how to define learning styles and their categories (Oxford 1993; Reid
1995); how learning styles influence learners’ strategy choices and learning achievements
(Ehrman and Oxford 1989; Oxford and Ehrman 1988); whether effective learners share cer-

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

tain style and strategy preferences (Wong and Nunan 2011); and the demographic differences
in learning style preference (Wehrwein et al. 2007). However, most of the studies have been
Western-oriented and considered Chinese learners as a subsample in cross-cultural investi-
gations of EFL learners (e.g., Reid 1987). Research into learning styles in diverse contexts
is necessary to deepen people’s understanding of the learning style literature (Sahragard
et al. 2016). Even fewer recent studies have considered the learning style preferences of
Chinese populations (Zhang and Evans 2013), a situation dramatically out of line with the
fact that China has the largest group of English learners (Taylor 2002). In addition, few
researchers have empirically examined the role that learning styles plays in foreign language
achievement (Bailey et al. 2000), and this lack of research is also reflected in the Chinese
EFL context (Cheng and Guan 2015). Zhou (2011) indicated that it is particularly critical
for English teachers to understand English learners’ learning styles, as this knowledge can
help teachers to plan their lessons, match or adapt their teaching methods and provide the
most appropriate and meaningful activities or tasks to suit a learner group at different stages.
Given that the view of English as a global language is pervasive in China (Crystal 1997;
Pan and Block 2011), English achievement matters greatly to university students seeking
degree, grants, and future career opportunities (Jin and Yang 2006). Considering the impor-
tance of learning style in EFL research (Li 2005; Wu and Wang 2009), the paradox between
the concerted influence that learning styles have on English achievements (Oxford 2003),
and the insufficient empirical studies published internationally on whether Chinese English
learners’ learning styles influence their English performance (Cheng and Guan 2015), there
is a new need to re-visit Chinese learners’ learning style preferences and examine whether
their learning style preferences influence their English achievements. In doing so, teachers
may gain a better knowledge of students’ preferred learning styles and adjust their teaching
strategies accordingly to enhance teaching and learning outcomes.

Literature Review

Learning Styles

Since the mid-1970s, there has been a substantial growth in learning style research in terms of
its definitions and dimensions (Oxford 1993; Oxford and Anderson 1995; Wintergerst et al.
2003; Reid 1984, 1995; Wintergerst et al. 2001). Although this area of study is nearly half
a century old, little agreement has been reached on the precise definition of learning styles
(Anderson and Adams 1992). Researchers have also disagreed on the overlap between the
concepts of learning styles, cognitive styles and learning ability (Leite et al. 2010). Various
conceptualisations of learning styles have been published, which has helped to sort out the
field (Leite et al. 2010; Sternberg and Zhang 2001). For example, as an early researcher
in the field, Keefe (1979) described learning styles as relatively stable cognitive, affective
and physiological traits that indicate how learners perceive, interact with and respond to
the learning environment. In the area of foreign language teaching, Reid (1987) suggested
that ‘learning style’ was a more general term and an internally based trait, unconsciously
perceived or used by language learners, that reflected an individual’s natural and habitual way
of absorbing, processing and retaining new information and skills. Most modern learning style
theories have focused on either the cognitive learning style, such as the holistic/analytical
approach to learning, or the perceptual learning style, such as the visual/auditory/kinaesthetic
(VAK) approach to learning (Riding 2001).

123
J Psycholinguist Res

The perceptual VAK learning style has been the most popular and widely researched topic
in the foreign language teaching research (Reid 1984, 1995). Its popularity comes from its face
validity, simplicity and ease of use (Leite et al. 2010). Considering that a learning style survey
must be content-specific (Ehrman 1996; Westman 1993) and that VAK was included in the
most well-known and widely studied learning style survey ‘Learning Style Survey: Assessing
Your Own Learning Styles’ (Cohen et al. 1995) in foreign language research, this study used
the VAK dimension in the instrument developed by Cohen et al. (1995) to investigate Chinese
EFL learners’ learning style preferences. The VAK dimension was measured based on how
language learners used their physical senses to approach and process information (Cohen
et al. 1995).
Dunn and Dunn (1979) suggested that the visual style was the dominant style for Western
students in foreign language teaching and learning, with 40% of students assigned to this style,
followed by the kinaesthetic (30–40%) and auditory (20–30%) styles. This was consistent
with Dale’s (1969) research finding that most EFL learners preferred the visual style. In Asia,
EFL students were reported as often highly visual, with Korean students scoring the highest
under the visual style (Kim and Kim 2014; Reid 1987). Chinese students most preferred
the visual style of English learning (Reid 1987). However, Wang (1992) suggested that
Chinese university English majors most preferred the kinaesthetic learning style. Considering
the inconsistencies in the literature, this study aims to re-examine Chinese EFL learners’
perceptual learning style preferences. Its first hypothesis is stated as follows.
H1 Chinese EFL learners score the highest under the visual style of learning.

Learning Styles and Foreign Language Achievement

In the second/foreign language teaching setting, studies have investigated the relation-
ship between language learners’ dominant learning style preferences and language learning
achievements (Oxford 1993). Language learners who recognise their preferred learning styles
can adopt appropriate learning strategies in the given learning tasks and context and usually
convey their preferred learning styles to language teachers, who can adjust their teaching
strategies in time. In such a way, learners achieve higher levels of foreign language achieve-
ments (Jiang 2002; Oxford 1993). Studies have also revealed inconsistencies in the influence
that learning styles have on learning achievements; for example, they have found that learn-
ing styles are weakly or indirectly associated with achievements in foreign language learning
(e.g., Bailey et al. 2000; Oxford et al. 1993; Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi 2013). Despite
this, holding the belief that learning styles influence learning outcomes, Oxford and Ehrman
(1993) stated that visual learners achieve more by using written instructional materials. In
China, effective EFL learners prefer visual and auditory styles and strategies, while less
effective learners prefer kinaesthetic strategies (Wong and Nunan 2011). Xu and Yu (2012)
indicated that the auditory style is positively related to Chinese students’ English learning
performance. Based on these discussions, there is a need to re-examine whether EFL learn-
ers’ learning style preferences predict their English achievements. In this study, students’
College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) scores are used to investigate whether their learning
style preferences influence their English achievements. Other hypotheses are formulated as
follows.
H2 Chinese EFL students’ visual learning style predicts their CET-4 achievements.
H3 Chinese EFL students’ auditory learning style predicts their CET-4 achievements.
H4 Chinese EFL students’ kinaesthetic learning style predicts their CET-4 achievements.

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Fig. 1 The research model

Based on the above discussions, the research model illustrating H2 , H3 , and H4 were
presented in Fig. 1.

English Teaching in Chinese Universities

In Chinese universities, English is a compulsory course and students are required to achieve
a certain level of English proficiency to qualify as university graduates (Jin and Yang 2006).
CET, a national standardised proficiency test administered by the National College English
Testing Committee on behalf of the Chinese Ministry of Education, is a mandatory test for
undergraduates in all Chinese universities for graduation. It is held twice annually summer
and winter. CET tests students on listening, reading, translation, and writing. At this point in
time, there is no published records that attempt to compare the CET with TOEFL or IELTS.
Passing the CET-4 (paper-based test) used to be an essential criterion for university admin-
istrators to assess students’ eligibility to graduate with Bachelor’s degrees (Zheng and Cheng
2008). After the 2005 reform of the education system, each Chinese university was given
the autonomy to decide on the role of the CET-4 scores (Jin 2006) for graduation purposes.
Subsequently, the CET-4 went from an assessment of students’ English language compe-
tence to become an indicator for university ranking in the national league table in China (Jin
and Yang 2006). Another national standardised English proficiency test in China is the Test
for English Majors, known as TEM. Internationally well-known standardised tests such as
IELTS and TOFEL are not mandatory for Chinese university students and are usually only
taken by those who intended to apply for study in overseas universities.
As for English teaching in Chinese universities, Wang and Wang (2011) surveyed 530
Chinese university students and found that non-English major undergraduate students need
to complete a range of 13–16 credits in listening, speaking, reading, translation, and writing.
Students received English language learning mostly through English classes because English
is not used as the Medium for Instruction in most universities except for several world-class
universities such as Peking University and Tsinghua University (Ma and Zhang 2007).
However, English language teaching has been fraught with problems for many years.
Among these, there is the large teacher–student ratio of about 1:200 (Hu and McGrath
2011), typically, an English teacher teaches between 60 and 80 students in one class timeslot
that lasts 45 min. Teachers are constantly under pressure to focus on preparing students

123
J Psycholinguist Res

to perform well in exams to the detriment of the learning process (Pan and Block 2011).
Inevitably, EFL teaching in China is textbook- and teacher-centred (Hu and McGrath 2011),
with little consideration for learners’ traits. In recognition of the key role learning styles play in
learning EFL, the College English Curriculum Requirement (2007) was created to advocate an
emphasis on learners’ IDs, with special attention paid to learning style preferences, something
that has long been valued in the Western education system (Hu and McGrath 2011; Pan and
Block 2011).
Driven by policy promotion and student-centred pedagogy, research on learning styles has
been conducted in China, but it has arrived at contradictory findings on the learning styles
of Chinese learners, and studies of the learning style preferences of Chinese populations
remain few and far between (Zhang and Evans 2013). It is far from enough to make Chinese
learners a subsample in a cross-cultural investigation (Reid 1987). Therefore, it is necessary
to provide a clearer and more complete image of Chinese learners’ learning style preferences.
This study aims to provide a clearer picture of Chinese university English learners’ learning
style preferences and whether those preferences lead to success in their English achievements.
This study contributes to the learning style theories by providing empirical evidence of Chi-
nese university EFL learners’ learning styles, in addition to practical suggestions for English
teachers and policymakers on curriculum design and instruction. It is also important for
Chinese language learners to recognise their own preferences and strengths, adopt effective
learning strategies and thus expand their learning potential (Wong and Nunan 2011). This
study answers the following two research questions.
RQ1. What are Chinese English learners’ learning style preferences?
RQ2. Do Chinese English learners’ learning style preferences influence their English
achievements?

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study included 329 Chinese students from a university in East China.
All of the students were enrolled in the college English course taught at the university. The
mean student age was 21.06 (SD = 1.87), and 173 (52.6%) of the students were female.
Among the participants, 67 and 33% majored in Computer Science and Communication
Studies, respectively.

Procedure

The participants were recruited with the help of English teachers at the university. Informed
consent forms were sent to all participants who were informed of their right to withdraw
from the study at any time with no questions asked. Participants were also informed of the
purpose of this study and the anonymity of their data. The questionnaires (in Chinese) were
completed during regular class sessions in no more than 20 min.

Instrument

The instrument in this study comprised two parts: demographic information and the learning
style survey (Cohen et al. 1995), which was specially designed to determine second or foreign
language learners’ learning style preferences. In particular, the first part of the survey, ‘How I

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Table 1 CET-4 scores of the Major CET-4 SD t value F Sig.

participants Mean

Computer 443.61 54.927 3.767 4.049 .000

science
(N = 226)
Communication 413.61 71.817
(N = 103)
Total (N = 329)

use my physical senses’, was used to assess the visual (V), auditory (A) and kinaesthetic (K)
learning styles of the participants. In this part of the survey, each of the three kinds of learning
style was measured with 10 items, with a total of 30 items in the survey (Cohen et al. 1995)
to represent the VAK learning style preferences. The 30-item VAK learning style preferences
were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Two doctoral students who were bilingual in English and Chinese translated each item
from English into Chinese carefully to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Some minor
modifications were made in the wording that ensured the accuracy of the translation. Fol-
lowing this process, a standard back-translation procedure (Brislin 1986) was completed by
another two bilingual speakers who translated the Chinese set of items back into English. The
accuracy of the Chinese translation was indicated by a match of the vocabulary and meaning
of the two sets of English items.

Data Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) were used to
examine the reliability of the items and the hypothesised relationship between the VAK and
CET-4 scores. For SEM, a two-step approach was adopted (Anderson and Gerbing 1988)
to analyse the measurement and structural models in sequence. The first step (measurement
model) involved evaluating the fit between observed variables and their underlying constructs
based on the sample data. The second step (structural model) required analysis of the hypoth-
esised relationship between exogenous variables, i.e., the VAK scores, and the endogenous
variable, i.e., the CET-4 scores. Table 1 shows the CET-4 scores of the participants.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

The means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values of the 30 items were analysed.
The means of these items were between 3.94 and 5.04 (SD = 1.42 and 1.93). Skewness ranged
between − .78 and .14, while kurtosis ranged between − 1.06 and .24. These two indices fell
within the cut-offs of |3.0| and |8.0|, respectively, and met the recommended guidelines to
support the univariate normality of the sample data (Kline 2010).
EFA using maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation was conducted to pro-
vide preliminary results before further analyses of the reliability and validity of the items in
the VAK sections. All of the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 and AMOS
20.0. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was .90, indicating an adequate level of com-

123
J Psycholinguist Res

mon variance within the scale. The results showed that five factors had eigenvalues greater
than 1, accounting for 35.23, 7.41, 3.88, 2.44 and 2.3% of the total variance, respectively.
However, 10 of the 30 items had factor loadings below .50, indicating an insufficient amount
of variance explained by these items (Hair et al. 2010). These items were therefore removed,
with 20 items remaining. Nevertheless, eight more items did not load on their corresponding
factors and thus were removed from further analyses. Accordingly, 12 items (i.e., visual: 6
items; auditory: 3 items; and kinaesthetic: 3 items) were retained for further examination of
the measurement model.

Analysing the Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with maximum likelihood (ML) estima-
tion to examine the fit of a congeneric model with uncorrelated errors. As the ML estimation
typically assumes the multivariate normality of the observed variables in the measurement
model, Mardia’s normalised multivariate kurtosis value was examined. Using the formula p
(p + 2), in which p equals the number of observed indicators, Mardia’s coefficient was 27.05
for the current sample, lower than the value of 360 [18 (18 + 2)] and thus supporting the
presence of multivariate normality in the current sample (Mardia 1970).
Several criteria were used to examine the reliability of the items and validity of the instru-
ment. These criteria included the composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted
(AVE), standardised estimates and t values (Teo and Fan 2013). The values of CR and AVE
and the standardised estimates of the items and factors had to be greater than .50 to indicate a
sufficient amount of variance accounted by the items (Hair et al. 2010). As shown in Table 2,
all of the standardised estimates, t values and CR and AVE values for the items are above .50,
except for the AVE value for the visual items. However, the standardised estimates, t values
and CR values indicate that the visual scale items were reliable.
To examine the fit of the measurement and structural models, several indices were assessed.
These indices included the minimum fit function χ 2 to its degree of freedom χ 2 /df . Schu-
macker and Lomax (2010) recommended that the ratio be less than 3.0 to indicate acceptable
fit. Other indices included the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), in addition to the standardised root mean
square residual (SRMR). The TLI and CFI values were recommended to be greater than .90
to show adequate model fit and .95 to show good model fit. The RMSEA and SRMR values
were recommended to be lower than .06 and .08, respectively (Hu and Bentler 1999). A
test of the initial measurement model showed an unacceptable model fit (χ 2 = 180.92, χ 2 /df
= 3.55, TLI = .89, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .088, SRMR = .065).
Modification indices were examined and showed that by adding correlations between the
errors of items 8 and 9, the χ 2 value would improve by 20.55. An evaluation of items 8
(i.e., ‘I understand lectures better when professors write on the board’) and 9 (i.e., ‘Charts,
diagrams and maps help me understand what someone says’) revealed that the wordings
could be problematic, as ‘understand lectures better’ and ‘help me understand what someone
says’ could have similar meanings to the participants. After correlating the errors of items
8 and 9, CFA showed sufficient fit of the measurement model (χ 2 = 149.79, χ 2 /df = 2.99,
TLI = .91, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .078, SRMR = .061).

Analysing the Structural Model

The VAK scores were examined to assess the participants’ learning style preferences. To
evaluate the accuracy of the revised VAK scale (12 items) compared with the original VAK

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Table 2 Results of the measurement model

Variable Item SEa t value CRb AVEc

Visual .83 .45

1. I remember something better if I write it .51 8.61
down
2. I take detailed notes during lectures .68 11.71
3. I use colour coding to help me as I learn or .67 11.52
work
4. I need written directions for tasks .64 10.95
5. I understand lectures better when .75 12.95
professors write on the board
6. Charts, diagrams and maps help me .77 –
understand what someone says
Auditory .79 .55
1. I need oral directions for a task .71 11.24
2. I remember peoples’ names but not their .77 11.94
faces
3. I easily remember jokes that I hear .75 –
Kinaesthetic .80 .57
1. If I had a choice between sitting and .76 10.77
standing, I would rather stand
2. I think better when I move around (e.g., .85 11.08
pace or tap my feet)
3. I play with or bite on my pens during .64 –
lectures
a SE standardised estimates
b CR composite reliability (λ)2 /(λ)2 + ((1–λ2 ))
c AVE average variance extracted (λ2 )/(λ2 ) +((1–λ2 ))

scale (30 items), the scores from the two scales were correlated. As shown in Table 3,
the scores of the original and revised versions had strong and significant correlations with
their corresponding scales, indicating that the revised VAK scale was able to reproduce and
represent the scores from the original VAK scale accurately. Scores from the revised VAK
scale revealed that participants attributed the highest score to the visual style, followed by
the auditory and kinaesthetic styles (see Table 4). Therefore, H1 was supported.

Analysing the Relationship Between Learning Style and English Test Score

The results showed an acceptable fit of the structural model (χ 2 = 158.85, χ 2 /df = 2.69,
TLI = .91, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .072, SRMR = .058). However, none of the learning style
variables predicted the CET-4 scores (all ps > .05). The visual learning style had a weak
negative relationship with the CET-4 scores (β visual = − .06, pvisual = .41). By contrast, both
the auditory and kinaesthetic learning styles had week positive relationships with the CET-4
scores (β auditory = .06, pauditory = .53; β kinaesthetic = .03, pkinaesthetic = .76). These results did
not support H2 , H3 or H4 .

123
J Psycholinguist Res

Table 3 Inter-correlation results for the original and revised VAK scales

Visual Auditory Kinaesthetic Visual Auditory Kinaesthetic

(original) (original) (original) (revised) (revised) (revised)

Visual
(original)
Auditory .72**
(original)
Kinaesthetic .66** .78**
(original)
Visual .94** .60** .52**
(revised)
Auditory .56** .86** .65** .42**
(revised)
Kinaesthetic .50** .57** .86** .36** .52**
(revised)
**p < .01

Table 4 Chinese EFL learners’ Mean SD

learning style preferences from
the revised VAK scale Visual 4.71 1.16
Auditory 4.32 1.31
Kinaesthetic 4.31 1.42

Discussion

Foreign language researchers have devoted themselves to studying learning styles and their
effect on foreign language teaching and learning. It is arguable whether a learning style
preference contributes to effective EFL proficiency based on previous discussions. This study
examined Chinese EFL learners’ learning style preferences and whether those preferences
led to their success in English achievements. The results indicated that Chinese university
students prefer the visual learning style, a finding consistent with those of Reid (1987) but
contrary to previous findings suggesting Chinese English learners prefer the kinaesthetic
(Wang 1992; Xu and Yu 2012) and auditory (Xu and Yu 2012) learning styles. The students’
preference for the visual learning style can be attributed in part to the emphasis on rote
memory learning through writing in traditional Chinese education.
The results also suggested that learning style preferences do not predict Chinese univer-
sity students’ English achievements. This finding is not in line with the previous finding
that perceptual learning styles influence learning outcomes (Li and Qin 2006; Reid 1987;
Wang 1992; Yu 1997). Although learning styles are individual internalised features and have
widely been described as an important element in language learning, they have not been
treated as significant in the Chinese English learning setting. Historically, Chinese educa-
tion has been highly characterised as teacher-centred and examination-oriented, and rote
memory has been considered the best strategy to succeed in tests (Hu and McGrath 2011).
Students make great effort to memorise English words, phrases and even patterns for writ-
ing compositions so that they can achieve good scores in tests. In this case, their individual
learning styles are usually neglected in English instruction (Hu and McGrath 2011; Pan

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

and Block 2011). Although student-centred pedagogy has been widely promoted for years
and its potential for improving teaching and learning has been well noted, innovations in
pedagogy and paradigm remain ineffective in China (Li 2014). As Zhu (2015) reported,
in Chinese higher educational institutes, the potential for innovation has been neither fully
recognised nor systematically implemented. In the Chinese EFL teaching context, the tra-
ditional teacher-dominating pedagogy is still ubiquitously observed (Li 2014). Teachers do
not pay much attention to individual learners’ learning style preferences, and even if they
intended to, the large gap in the teacher–student ratio would not empower them to focus on
individual students’ learning style preferences and needs. Although the College English Cur-
riculum Requirement (2007) promotes communicative teaching for the benefit of improving
students’ communicative skills, teachers’ verbal teaching apparently cannot benefit those
who prefer the visual or kinaesthetic learning styles. Furthermore, listening and reading
comprehension are two important parts of the CET-4 tests and share the same proportion
(35%) of the total score. To achieve satisfactory scores, students must practise both English
listening and reading, which require them to have multiple information-processing skills.
This explains the research finding that no specific learning style directly predicts English
achievement.
In addition to test-oriented English learning in China, learners’ individual portraits are
not valued as highly in China as they are in Western countries (Zhu 2013). Hierarchy is an
important value in China (Hofstede 1980). In the teaching and learning process, teachers are
regarded as occupying a higher position in the hierarchy, and students show their respect to
those teachers, even when they do not favour their teaching styles. Teachers are inclined to
prefer leadership in the Chinese educational context (Zhu 2013); in other words, teachers
must take a leading role and give clear guidance to students, while students need to be disci-
plined (Zhu et al. 2010). Thus, students’ individual traits are not emphasised in the Chinese
educational context. It is reasonable to believe that students’ learning style preferences do
not necessarily relate to their learning achievements in the long run.

Limitations and Further Study

The results of this study must be interpreted under consideration of the following limitations.
First, all of the participants came from one Chinese university, and considering the geographic
diversity of the Chinese population, the research findings in this study cannot represent
the entire situation of Chinese English learners. Second, data were collected using self-
reported answers, which may raise validity issues in terms of data quality and response
validity (Fan et al. 2006). The responses from the self-reported surveys might not have
accurately reflected the participants’ true feelings. Thirdly, cultural values that may help
explain people’s thinking and behaviour were not examined in this study. Researchers may
consider investigating the extent to which Chinese learners adopt cultural cognitive processes
such as collectivism mental characteristics. Further studies are needed to involve students
from different universities to gain a wider understanding of Chinese students’ learning style
preferences. In addition, empirical studies should be conducted to test how Chinese cultural
habit influences English learners’ learning styles and behaviour.

123
J Psycholinguist Res

Conclusion

Given that individual learners perform differently in language learning, few general con-
clusions were drawn from the learning styles research (Ellis 1994). Nonetheless, Chinese
scholars have shown increasing interest in investigating students’ learning styles in the for-
eign language learning setting. In particular, with the increasing trend of students studying
abroad, quality teaching, which is characterised by constructivist teaching and an emphasis
on students’ IDs, is promoted to better prepare students for their future study experiences
in different countries (Biggs and Tang 2007). Chinese university English teachers have been
striving to empower students with sufficient intercultural knowledge (Zhang 2007), such as
by informing them of the teaching styles and students’ learning styles and strategies adopted
in the West. Unfortunately, a severe lack of empirical studies and insufficient reports on the
subject have been published in international journals (Wu and Wang 2009).
This study provides insight into Chinese English learners’ preferred learning styles and
whether their learning style preferences predict their English achievements. The findings
suggest that although Chinese EFL learners prefer visual learning, learning styles in China
are not as important as those in the Western context, in that they do not predict Chinese stu-
dents’ English achievements. This study contextualises learning style research in the Chinese
English learning context, enriches understanding of learning style theories and provides valu-
able empirical evidence for both English teachers and learners in terms of strategy selection
and reflective teaching practice. In addition, it describes the cultural influence on Chinese
English teaching and learning. It is important for both students and teachers to be aware of
the convergence and divergence between teachers and students. English teachers in mainland
China should be aware of students’ needs to adjust their teaching. Furthermore, considering
the stereotypes that have arisen in the past few decades regarding Chinese learners’ learning
style preferences, Chinese learners’ overall learning style preferences must be uncovered
to benefit students, teachers and academics in the field. This would contribute greatly to
Western-dominated language learning theories by providing empirical and hands-on evidence
of Chinese language learners’ learning style preferences. Studying students’ preferences for
language learning styles would provide important guidance for practical teaching and learn-
ing practices, as an awareness of those learning styles would allow teachers to self-examine
and evaluate whether their teaching strategies serve their students’ needs to the fullest, espe-
cially under the ubiquitous influence of traditional Chinese educational philosophies, which
highly emphasise a power distance between teachers and students.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Anderson, J. A., & Adams, M. (1992). Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations:
Implications for instructional design. In L. L. B. Border & N. V. N. Chism (Eds.), Teaching for diversity
(pp. 19–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Using learning style to predict foreign language
achievement at the college level. System, 28, 115–133.

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Barmeyer, C. I. (2004). Learning styles and their impact on cross-cultural training: An international comparison
in France, Germany, and Quebec. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(6), 577–594. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.011.
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Ke, J., et al. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive
system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26.
Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative
studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27–39.
Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.),
Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cagiltay, K., & Bichelmeyer, B. (2000). Differences in learning styles in different cultures: A qualitative study.
Cognitive Style, 23, 1–23.
Chen, M. L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning
strategies of Taiwanese English as a Foreign Language Learners. Learning and Individual Differences,
19, 304–308.
Cheng, H., & Guan, S. (2015). Unravelling the influence of cognitive style on Chinese students’ classroom
behaviours: The mediating effects of the structure oriented/depth-oriented learning approach. Educational
Psychology, 35(4), 497–512.
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. C. (1995). Learning style survey: Assessing your own
learning styles. Retrieved from http://pep.psd267.org/pluginfile.php/14423/mod_resource/content/1/
LearningStylesSurvey.pdf.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acqui-
sition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment.
Language Learning, 59, 230–248.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they… Can they… be matched?
Educational Leadership, 36, 238–244.
Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second
language learning 1. System, 31(3), 313–330.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adults’
language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 1–13.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting.
Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. London: Wiley.
Fan, X., Miller, B. C., Park, K. E., Winward, B. W., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., et al. (2006). An
exploratory study about inaccuracy and invalidity in adolescent self-report surveys. Field Methods, 18(3),
223–244.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of learning and teaching
styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students
in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.
2004.00227.x.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hatami, S. (2012). Learning styles. Elt Journal, 67(4), 488–490.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Hu, Z., & McGrath, I. (2011). Innovation in higher education in China: Are teachers ready to integrate ICT in
English language teaching? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 41–59.
Huang, J., & Brown, K. (2009). Cultural factors affecting Chinese ESL students’ academic learning. Education,
129(4), 643–654.

123
J Psycholinguist Res

Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 617–637.
Jin, Y. (2006). Improving test validity and wash back: A study on CET-4 washback. Foreign Language World,
6, 67–75.
Jin, Y., & Yang, H. Z. (2006). The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected
in the CET. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 21–36.
Keefe, J. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles: Diagnosing and
prescribing programs (pp. 1–17). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kim, T., & Kim, Y. (2014). A structural model for perceptual learning styles, the ideal L2 self, motivated
behavior, and English proficiency. System, 46, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.007.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted validation of the scores of the vark: Learning styles
inventory with multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 70(2), 323–339.
Li, D. (2005). Studies on learning style and foreign language teaching. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,
10, 22–25.
Li, L. (2014). Understanding language teachers’ practice with educational technology: A case from China.
System, 46, 105–119.
Li, J., & Qin, X. Q. (2006). Language learning styles and strategies of tertiary-level English learners in China.
RELC Journal, 37(1), 67–89.
Ma, Y. N., & Zhang, X. M. (2007). On the state of bilingual education in Chinese universities. Journal of
Peking University (Philosophical Social Science Edition), 44(s2), 66–67.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57,
519–530.
Masgoret, A. M. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies
conducted by gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(S1), 167–210.
Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students’ learning style preferences. RELC
Journal, 21(1), 29–54.
Naserieh, F., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2013). Perceptual learning style preferences among Iranian graduate students.
System, 41(1), 122–133.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style analysis survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Retrieved November, 2015 from
http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf.
Oxford, R. L., & Anderson, N. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28(4),
201–215.
Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1988). Psychological type and adult language learning strategies: A pilot study.
Journal of Psychological Type, 16, 22–32.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13, 188–205.
Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language
learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese
language achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 359–371.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The
Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28.
Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in china: An investigation into learners’ and
teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.011.
Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual learning style preference questionnaire. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in
the ESL/EFL classrooms (pp. 202–207). Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language and Teaching Press.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL quarterly, 21(1), 87–111.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. New York, NY: Heinle and Heinle.
Riding, R. (2001). Nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives
on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadeghi, N., Kasim, Z. M., Tan, B. H., & Abdullah, F. S. (2012). Learning styles, personality types and reading
comprehension performance. English Language Teaching, 5(4), 116–123.
Sahragard, R., Khajavi, Y., & Abbasian, R. (2016). Field of study, learning styles, and language learning
strategies of university students: Are there any relations? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
10(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.976225.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Routledge.

123
 J Psycholinguist Res

Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of learning styles. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 5–17.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L. F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction
and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486–506.
Sternberg, R., & Zhang, L.-F. (Eds.). (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sun, P. P., & Teng, L. S. (2017). Profiling perceptual learning styles of Chinese as a second language learners
in university settings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1529–1548.
Tabatabaei, O., & Mashayekhi, S. (2013). The relationship between EFL Learners’ learning styles and their
L2 Achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 245–253.
Taylor, J. (2002). China’s English language push. [Online]. ABC News Online. http://www.abc.net.au/
correspondents/s717371.htm. Last accessed November 3, 2015.
Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213.
Wang, C. M. (1992). A study of English major students’ language styles in China. In S. C. Gui (Ed.), The
psychology of Chinese learners of English (pp. 72–89). Changsha: Hunan Education Press. (Chinese
version).
Wang, S. R., & Wang, H. X. (2011). On the state of college English teaching in China and its future development.
The Journal of Foreign Languages in China, 8(5), 4–11.
Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences
among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 153–157. https://
doi.org/10.1152/advan.00060.2006.
Westman, A. S. (1993). Learning styles are content specific and probably influenced by content areas studied.
Psychological Reports, 73(2), 512–514.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Itzen, R. C. (2001). The construct validity of one learning styles instrument.
System, 29(3), 385–403.
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Verna, M. A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style modalities for
ESL/EFL students. System, 31(1), 85–106.
Wong, L. L. C., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System,
39(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.004.
Wu, L. L., & Wang, F. (2009). Study on influence of learning styles of college students of science and
engineering on teaching strategies. Foreign Language World, 5(134), 50–59.
Xu, X., & Yu, W. (2012). Study on Chinese non-English majors’ English learning styles. Education Explo-
ration, 3(249), 50–51.
Yu, X. L. (1997). Study on English learning styles of Chinese undergraduate English majors. Foreign Language
Teaching and Research, 1, 59–65.
Zhang, H. L. (2007). Intercultural approach to foreign language teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Lan-
guage Education Press.
Zhang, J., & Evans, M. S. (2013). An empirical study on the multidimensional learning styles of Chinese EFL
students. International Proceedings of Economic Development and Research, 68, 61–69.
Zheng, Y., & Cheng, L. (2008). Test review: College English test (CET) in China. Language Testing, 25,
204–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208092433.
Zhou, M. (2011). Learning styles and teaching styles in College English Teaching. International Education
Studies, 4(1), 73–77.
Zhu, C. (2013). Students’ and teachers’ thinking styles and preferred teacher interpersonal behavior. Journal
of Educational Research, 106(5), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.736431.
Zhu, C. (2015). Organisational culture and technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79.
Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and
adoption of online collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of Teacher Education,
33(2), 147–165.

123