• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Students’ Language Learning Preferences

Vol. 4. No. 3 — May 2000

Students’ Language Learning Preferences

Erdogan Bada & Zuhal Okan
Çukurova University
Turkey
<ebada@mail.cu.edu.tr>
<okanzu@mail.cu.edu.tr>

Abstract

For effective language learning and teaching, both learner skills and learner assumptions should be given due attention. In promoting this idea, students should be provided with the opportunity to clarify and assess their preferences, particularly in reference to definition of objectives in general and awareness of strategies in learning. Moved with the conviction that learners and learners’ preferences are of crucial importance in the development of learner autonomy, we asked 230 students at the ELT Department, Faculty of Education, Çukurova University, to state their views as to how they prefer learning English. As a further step, 23 teachers working at the same department with the same students were also asked to express their views regarding the extent of their awareness of their students’ learning preferences. The data obtained reveal significant results suggesting a need for a closer co-operation between students and teachers as to how learning activities should be arranged and implemented in the classroom.

Introduction

Many ESL teachers experience student resistance when they introduce an instructional activity in the classroom. Some students want more opportunities to participate in free conversation, expressing their wish towards a more communicatively oriented approach. On the other hand, there are those who would prefer more emphasis on grammar teaching. We believe that the teacher, in making decisions regarding the type of activities to conduct in a language classroom, should take into account such learner diversities. In this respect, Corder states:

In the end successful language “teaching-learning” is going to be dependent upon the willing co-operation of the participants in the interaction and an agreement between them as to the goals of their interaction. Co-operation cannot be imposed but must be negotiated (1977, p. 13).

We would like to reiterate the last sentence in the quotation above: “Co-operation cannot be imposed but must be negotiated.” If we truly believe that considering subjective preferences felt by the learner is crucial for effective language learning, then some kind of negotiation is needed between the participants, in our case, teachers and students. Information has to be exchanged about roles and expectations, both teachers’ and learners’ awareness of each other’s needs and resources has to be raised and compromises have to be reached between what learners expect and want and what the teacher feels he/she can and ought to provide (Brindley, 1989, p. 73). [-1-]

Although many teachers acknowledge the need to understand the ways in which learners differ in terms of needs and preferences, they may not consult learners in conducting language activities. The basis for such reluctance to cooperate may be that learners are not generally regarded capable of expressing what they want or need to learn and how they want to learn it. Besides, it is argued by many teachers, quite rightly, that in some societies, social roles of teachers and learners are so rigidly drawn that expecting learners to participate in decision-making in the classroom may not be viewed as appropriate.

We agree such a consultation-negotiation approach will inevitably involve a change in the power structure in the classroom. That is especially true in Turkey, where a majority of learners and teachers wish to continue to play the role of “pupil-acquirer of knowledge” and “teacher-transmitter of knowledge,” to use Stevick’s (1976) terms. Such a process of change surely requires sharing information about each other’s perceptions of classroom aims and events, and a compromise on actual needs and preferences.

Learners’ preferences have been emphasised in some research. Reid (1987), for example, based on survey data, distinguished four perceptual learning modalities:

  1. visual learning (for example, reading and studying charts);
  2. auditory learning (for example, listening to lectures or audio tapes);
  3. kinaesthetic learning (involving physical responses); and
  4. tactile learning (hands-on learning, as in building models).

He then administered a questionnaire to 1,388 students of varying language backgrounds to investigate their preferred modalities. This revealed that the learners’ preferences often differed significantly from those of native speakers of American English. They showed a general preference for kinesthetic and tactile learning styles, and for individual as opposed to group learning.

In another survey, Willing (1987) investigated the learning styles of 517 adult ESL learners in Australia. Based on their responses to a 30-item questionnaire, Willing sought to identify how differences in cognitive learning styles affected learners’ preferences in six different areas:

  1. preferences for particular kinds of classroom activities;
  2. preferences for particular types of teacher behaviour;
  3. preferences for particular grouping arrangements;
  4. preferences for particular aspects of language which need emphasis;
  5. preferences for particular sensory modes, such as visual, auditory, or tactile learning; and
  6. preferences for particular modes of learning on one’s own outside class.

It was found that differences in cognitive styles affected learners’ preferences for particular approaches to learning. For example, concrete learners tended to choose the following:

  • In class, I like to learn by games.
  • I like to learn English by working in pairs.

Learners with analytical learning styles, however, reported the following preferences:

  • I like to study grammar.
  • I like the teacher to let me find my mistakes. [-2-]

Although Richards and Lockhart (1994) argue that such information can prove to be significant as to whether both teachers and learners approach learning in the same way, they still oppose the idea of putting “learners into boxes labelled according to cognitive styles” (pp. 62-63). Nunan (1989) points out that accommodating learners’ needs and preferences is vital in designing a learner-centered curriculum. Such importance given to students’ feelings has also been stressed in Barkhuizen’s (1998) study, in which he reports an investigation of high school ESL learners’ perceptions of the language teaching-learning activities presented in their classes. The outcome of such investigation surprised the teachers in that perceptions of teachers and students differed greatly from each other. Block (1994, 1996), in this respect, states that a harmony between students and teachers’ aims regarding task assignment and performance must be maintained. In line with the views of the researchers mentioned above, this study also aims to contribute to the literature in this field.

The Study

Subjects

The subjects who participated in this research are 230 ELT students (158 female; 72 male) and 23 instructors (16 female; 7 male) teaching English at the ELT Department of the University of Çukurova. The students ranged between 18 – 25 years of age; teachers were between 25 and 45.

Questionnaire

The data for this study were collected through a 13-item questionnaire, adapted from Brindley (1984). The questionnaire had two versions; Version 1 was designed for students, and Version 2 for teachers. Apart from addressing and reference conventions, the versions do not differ significantly. Only items 3 and 4 were not included in the teachers’ version, because they were relevant to students only.

Each item in the questionnaire explores a particular L2 topic. However, they can be categorized into three major classes: Learning, Error Correction, and Assessment and/or Evaluation. The Learning class is divided into two subcategories: Course Content, and Non-course Content. While Course Content includes strategies for learning through the basic four skills, learning and expanding vocabulary, making use of audio-visual aids, and general L2 improvement, the Non-content subcategory looks to individual preferences in actualising the Course Content subcategory. Here we ask whether students benefit from working in groups, pairs, or individually, and if/how they allocate and utilise time for homework, inside and/or outside classroom.

Data Analysis

The data collected were analysed using the SPSS statistical package. A chi-square frequency analysis was carried out in order to define significance of dispersion of the yes/no choices (p < 0.05). Additionally, a t-test was also conducted to observe if there was a correlation between teachers' and students' responses (p > 0.05).

Results concerning each item in the questionnaire will be presented in a tabular form. In the columns, Items stands for the numeric values of the questionnaire items; Opts, options for each item; Yes, positive responses elicited from either students or teachers; No, negative responses elicited from either students or teachers; and %, responses expressed as a percentage. [-3-]

Presented here are the results for each item, beginning with Item 1. In the students’ version, we asked students if they were satisfied with their overall achievement in English, and in the teachers’ version, whether they were pleased with their students’ achievement in English.

Table 1: Satisfaction with Achievement

Item 1 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) Are you satisfied
with your achievement
in English?
66 28.7 164 71.3 0.00 7 30.4 16 69.6 0.06

As shown, 71.3% of the students replied negatively, and a similar result, 69.6%, was reported by the instructors. Thus, both students and teachers are aware of students’ dissatisfaction with their achievement in English (p=0.86).

With Item 2, being one of the Non-course Content items, students were asked to express whether they preferred working individually, or in any other way, and whether their instructors were in fact aware of that. Results for this item are presented in the table below:

Table 2: Working Styles

Item 2 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) individually 139 60.4 91 39.6 0.02 17 73.9 6 26.1 0.02
(2) in pairs 118 51.3 112 8.7 0.69 13 56.5 10 43.5 0.53
(3) in small groups 99 43.0 131 57.0 0.03 10 43.5 13 56.5 0.53
(4) in one large group 24 10.4 206 89.6 0.00 3 13.0 20 87.0 0.00
(5) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

The results for this item suggest that students generally prefer to work either individually, 60.4%, or in pairs, 51.3%. Similarly, 73.9% of teachers believe that students prefer working individually (p=0.20), and 56.5% in pairs (p=0.63). This correlation indicates teacher awareness of students’ preference regarding in-class learning. It is obvious that students do not like working in large groups, and their teachers are aware of that. This is a clear message to the teacher that students feel more comfortable, productive and relaxed by working individually or in pairs, where their voices would be heard, and views listened to and valued.

For Item 3, Learners seem to be divided on the issue of homework. With Item 3, we asked learners if they wanted work assigned as an outside classroom activity. The results can be observed in the table below: [-4-]

Table 3: Preference for Homework

Item 3 Students
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) Do you want homework? 75 32.6 155 67.4 0.00

As can be seen, only 32.6% of the learners believed that some sort of outside classroom activity would be helpful to their learning, while 67.4% did not hold this belief.

With Item 4, we try to see how students would like to utilize the time they allocate for homework. Their options are (1) preparing for the next class, (2) reviewing the day’s work, and (3) other. The results received for this item are illustrated in the table below:

Table 4: Time Allocation for Homework

Item 4 Students
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) preparing for the next class 131 57.0 99 43.0 0.03
(2) reviewing the day’s work 130 56.5 100 43.5 0.04
(3) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

By 57.0%, students give priority to Option (1), that is, preparing for the next class session. 56.5% would like to utilize this time reviewing the day’s work were. Learners may usually be inclined to finish a task in the classroom, and spend their outside-classroom time working on new topics. Assignments concerning future topics, with new insights and views added seem to appeal more to students.

Moreover, when this issue involves native speakers in the process, it becomes more attractive and appealing. A rather wide-spread belief among learners is that outside-classroom interaction and communication with other (native) speakers contribute greatly to their L2 competence and performance.

Table 5: Learning Inside/Outside Classroom

Item 5 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) spend all your learning time in the classroom 40 17.4 190 82.6 0.00 8 34.8 15 65.2 0.14
(2) spend some time in the classroom and some time practising your English with people outside 197 85.7 33 14.3 0.00 15 65.2 8 34.8 0.14
(3) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

[-5-]

Students, by 85.0%, expressed their attitude towards a non-classroom-centred learning. The results received by teachers (65.2) display a significant correlation with those of students, although the t-test value indicates a statistically insignificant result: p=0.01. Teachers’ awareness of learner preference is heartening, since now they can work on ways that would enable learners to utilize outside-class time most efficiently.

With Item 6, we asked whether students liked learning by (1) listening, (2)reading, (3)repeating what they hear, (4)listening and taking notes, (5)copying from the board, and (6)making summaries. The results for this item are presented in the table below:

Table 6: Ways of Learning

Item 6 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) listening 125 54.3 105 45.7 0.18 15 65.2 8 34.8 0.14
(2) reading 131 57.0 99 43.0 0.03 8 34.8 15 65.2 0.14
(3) copying from the board 74 32.2 156 67.8 0.00 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(4) listening and taking notes 174 75.7 56 24.3 0.00 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(5) reading and making notes 131 57.0 99 43.0 0.03 9 39.1 14 60.9 0.29
(6) repeating what you hear 82 35.7 148 64.3 0.00 6 26.1 17 73.9 0.02
(7) making summaries 102 44.3 128 55.7 0.08 2 8.7 21 91.3 0.00
(8) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

75.7% of students prefer learning by listening and taking notes. This preference is known by 52.2% of their teachers (p=0.01). The result shows that learners do not want to adopt a totally passive role in the learning process, since they could have otherwise focused on the first two options, ‘listening’ or ‘reading’. Low percentages received for two other activities, ‘copying from the board’ (35.7%) and ‘repeating what they hear’ (32.2%) support students’ reluctance to be viewed as passive learners. Making summaries was preferred by 44.3% of students. Teachers’ responses to this was only 8.7%, however. One-directional instruction, i.e., from teacher to student is not the preferred mode for students.

Vocabulary learning is a complicated task, though many may perceive it as simple. The learner has to perform several tasks when learning a new word: spelling, pronunciation, stress, grammatical class, semantic category, in combination with other semantic and grammatical elements in the sentence, and possible contextual occurrence in various situations. Thus, a language learner, attempting to learn a word, may overlook these characteristics of the word, and remain content with one or two. With Item 7, we wanted to find out as to how learners would like to learn new vocabulary. The options are: “by using the word in a sentence,” “thinking of relationship between known and new,” “saying or writing the word several times,” “guessing the unknown,” and “reading with no dictionary help.” Results received for this item can be observed below: [-6-]

Table 7: Vocabulary Learning

Item 7 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq

(1) using new words in a sentence 102 44.3 128 55.7 0.00 13 56.5 10 43.5 0.53
(2) thinking of relationships between known and new 155 67.4 75 32.6 0.00 13 56.5 10 43.5 0.53
(3) saying or writing words several times 58 25.2 172 74.8 0.00 3 13.0 20 87.0 0.00
(4) avoiding verbatim translation 64 27.8 166 72.2 0.00 5 21.7 18 78.3 0.00
(5) guessing the unknown 140 60.9 90 39.1 0.00 14 60.9 9 39.1 0.00
(6) reading without looking up words 77 33.5 153 66.5 0.00 5 21.7 18 78.3 0.00
(7)other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

Establishing a semantic relation with other words received the highest percentage, 67.4%. Teachers’ responses for this option, 56.5%, show close correlation to those of students’ (p=0.29).

“Guessing the unknown” is another option which received rather high percentages from both students and teachers: 60.9% for both (p=1.0). A mini protocol conducted with teachers on this topic revealed that “guessing the unknown” is the most emphasised vocabulary learning strategy in the classroom. Thus, a plausible explanation might be that teachers continuously motivate students to infer meaning from context rather than heavily rely on dictionary use.

As in any other field, errors in language teaching, learning, perception and production are inescapable. What is important though is coping with them in such a way that they do not frustrate, inhibit and/or discourage language learners. With Item 8, we asked learners as to how they would prefer to be corrected by their instructors. Results concerning this item are cited in the table below:

Table 8: Error Correction

Item 8 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) immediately, in front of everyone 68 29.6 162 70.4 0.00 3 13.0 20 87.0 0.00
(2) later, at the end of the activity, in front of everyone 68 29.6 162 70.4 0.00 6 26.1 17 73.9 0.02
(3) later, in private 113 49.1 117 50.9 0.79 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(4) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

As is shown, 49.1% of students would like to be corrected by their instructors in private. And teachers, by 52.2%, are aware of this preference (p=0.78). However, 59.2% of students do not mind having their instructors correct them publicly. Our belief is that error correction, made immediately, or later, does not have much impact on learners’ L2 competence and performance as do manner, approach and attitude of the teacher during the error correction process. To reiterate, the approach of the teacher is of crucial value here.

Item 9 is also related to error correction. Here, students were asked whether (1) they would mind if corrected by other students, or (2) asked to correct themselves. In the table below, we cite the results about this item: [-7-]

Table 9: Peer Correction

Item 9 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq

(1) do you mind if other students sometimes correct your written work 81 35.2 149 64.8 0.00 8 34.8 15 65.2 0.14
(2) do you mind if the teacher sometimes asks you to correct your own work 103 44.8 127 55.2 0.11 1 4.3 22 95.7 0.00

As can be observed here, a significant number of students would not mind having their written work corrected by other students (64.8%). Teachers also, by 65.2%, render a correlational percentage here (p=0.96). Regarding correcting their own work, students, by 55.2%, indicated that they would gladly correct themselves with no external intervention, and teachers, by a rather high percentage (95.7%), shared this view with their students.

With Item 10, we asked learners whether they like learning from (1) television/video/films, (2) radio, (3) tapes/cassettes, (4) written material, (5) the blackboard, or (6) pictures/posters. The results received for this item are given in the table below:

Table 10: Media Preference

Item 10 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) television/video/films 193 83.9 37 16.1 0.00 19 82.6 4 17.4 0.00
(2) radio 106 46.1 124 53.9 0.23 9 39.1 14 60.9 0.29
(3) tapes/cassettes 120 52.2 110 47.8 0.51 14 60.9 9 39.1 0.29
(4) written material 178 77.4 52 22.6 0.00 15 65.2 8 34.8 0.14
(5) the blackboard 125 54.3 105 45.7 0.18 15 65.2 8 34.8 0.14
(6) pictures/posters 103 44.8 127 55.2 0.11 7 30.4 16 69.6 0.06
(7) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

Television and video, being powerful media, receive a high percentage of preference (83.9% from students, and 82.6% from teachers). The striking resemblance of percentages is well supported by the statistical t-test value: p=0.87. We can observe that Option 4, ‘learning from written material’, also received relatively similar percentage of preference: 77.4% from students, and 65.2% from teachers (p=0.19).

Item 11 delves into what learners find very useful in the classroom: (1) role play (2) language games, (3) songs, (4) talking with and listening to other students, (5) memorising conversations/dialogues, (6) getting information from guest speakers, (7) getting information from planned visits, (8) writing a learning diary, and (9) learning about culture. Pertaining results are illustrated in the table below: [-8-]

Table 11: Learning Activities

Item 11 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) role play 92 40.0 138 60.0 0.00 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(2) language games 45 19.6 185 80.4 0.00 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(3) songs 69 30.0 161 70.0 0.00 10 43.5 13 56.5 0.53
(4) talking with and listening to other students 187 81.3 43 18.7 0.00 18 78.3 5 21.7 0.00
(5) memorising conversations/dialogues 43 18.7 187 81.3 0.00 3 13.0 20 87.0 0.00
(6) getting information from guest speakers; 58 25.2 172 74.8 0.00 6 26.1 17 73.9 0.02
(7) getting information from planned visits 41 17.8 189 82.2 0.00 2 8.7 21 91.3 0.00
(8) writing a learning diary 41 17.8 189 82.2 0.00 8 34.8 15 65.2 0.14
(9) learning about culture 117 50.9 113 49.1 0.79 17 73.9 6 26.1 0.02

The striking point about these results is that students believe that student-to-student interaction is most beneficial among the options cited here. Students express this belief by 81.3%. Teachers, by 78.3%, are aware of such a preference, and provide situations which lead to student-student activities. The correlation between the two groups is strongly supported by the carried out t-test analysis: p=0.72.

‘Learning about culture’ also received high percentages from both students and teachers (50.9% and 73.9% respectively). Although the statistical analysis renders an insignificant correlation between the two groups (p=0.03), still slightly more than half of the students and a great majority of the teachers believe that culture and language are embedded, and should be dealt with as such.

With Item 12, we asked about assessments: how would learners like to develop an idea about their language competence and performance. Their choices were: (1) through written tasks set by the teacher, or (2) ability to use the language they have learnt in real-life situations. Results are presented in the table below:

Table 12: Assessment of Langauge Performance

Item 12 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) written tasks set by the teacher 98 42.6 132 57.4 0.02 12 52.2 11 47.8 0.83
(2) using the language you have learnt in real-life situations 212 92.2 18 7.8 0.00 20 87.0 3 13.0 0.00
(3) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

An overwhelming majority (92.2%) state that they are capable of telling whether they are doing well or badly in authentic communications, and a significant number of teachers 87.0% believe that their students usually assess themselves based on their L2 performance in such situations. Responses of the two groups display a statistically significant result: p=0.38. [-9-]

Teachers can and should indeed occasionally refer to students’ opinion about their performance, and ask for recommendations in order to create better learning situations. Such ‘non-grading’ reference to students’ views may yield some outstanding results guiding teachers in many ways: material development, presentation, teacher-student interaction, etc.

The satisfaction learners get from their L2 performance varies from student to student. Some are after high marks; some after command of L2; and some after both. With Item 13, we asked learners if they get a sense of satisfaction from (1) having their work graded, (2) being told that they have made progress, or (3) feeling more confident in situations which they found difficult before. The results received are given in the table below:

Table 13: Expression of Satisfaction in Progress

Item 13 Students Teachers
Options Yes % No % Chi-sq Yes % No % Chi-sq
(1) having your work graded; 128 55.7 102 44.3 0.08 13 56.5 10 43.5 0.53
(2) being told that you have made progress 145 63.0 85 37.0 0.00 21 91.3 2 8.7 0.00
(3) feeling more confident in situations that you found difficult before 190 82.6 40 17.4 0.00 20 87.0 3 13.0 0.00
(4) other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00

Students, at 82.6%, feel satisfied in seeing themselves performing confidently in situations where they would feel less confident before. Thus, high grades fall short in giving learners genuine satisfaction. Teachers, by 87.0%, share this view with their students (p=0.59). However, by 91.3%, the same teachers feel that learners would like to be told they have made good progress. However, students’ responses to this particular option (63.0%) are far lower than the teachers’. The difference in both views is illustrated by the t-test result: p=0.00.

Findings and Conclusions

The findings obtained from this research provide some significant value, suggesting that:

  • Students’ tendency toward working individually and/or in pairs is well perceived by teachers.
  • A significant number of students expressed their views in favour of more outside-classroom activities that would help them gain proficiency in English; teachers’ responses seem to correlate with these views.
  • Types of learning that focus merely on receptive skills do not appeal to students; there is a significant tendency among learners towards class content that observes both receptive and productive skills emphasised equally.
  • Vocabulary learning for students is not a writing activity. The most significant way of mastering new words is in fact ‘thinking of relationships between known and new’ and ‘guessing the unknown from context’.
  • Being corrected by either the teacher or other students does not seem to bother students.
  • In classroom sessions, students would like to see more instructive television programmes shown to them, rather than extensive use of blackboard or tape recorders.
  • Finally, students expressed views that they would only feel satisfied with their language proficiency level when they see themselves involved and actively functioning in English. External judgement regarding their FL competence and performance does not seem to be that realistic and appealing to them. [-10-]

Effective language teaching and learning can only be achieved when teachers are aware of their learners’ needs, capabilities, potentials, and preferences in meeting these needs. In this study, we have only dealt with the preferences. Here, we have observed that students’ preferences do indeed correlate with those of teachers in many instances. The results obtained here call for a step forward towards a teacher-student co-operation in designing syllabuses, doing weekly course planning, and classroom management.

References

Barkhuizen, G.P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85-108.

Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of a class: Teacher/learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict. System, 22, 473-486.

Block, D. (1996). A window on the classroom: Classroom events viewed from different angles. In K.M. Bailey and D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom: Qualitative Research in Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brindley, G. (1984). Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.

Brindley, G. (1989). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R.K.Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corder, S.P. (1977). Language teaching and learning: a social encounter. In Brown, Yorio, and Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL’77. Washington,D.C.: TESOL.

Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87-103.

Richards, J. and C. Lockhart. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Stevick, E.W. (1976). Memory, meaning and method: Some psychological perspectives on language learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Willing, K. (1987). Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service. [-11-]

About the Authors

Erdogan Bada received his Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Exeter in 1993. He is currently an Assistant Professor and Vice-chair of the ELT Department. Faculty of Education, Çukurova University

Zuhal Okan holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Kent. She currently works as an Assistant Professor at Çukurova University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Turkey. Her research interests include discourse analysis and teacher thinking.


APPENDIX: The Questionnaire

HOW DO YOU LIKE LEARNING?

Please put a circle around your answer.

Name:
Age:
1 Male
2 Female


Are you satisfied with your achievement in English?       YES  NO


a) In class do you like learning
   1 individually?                                        YES  NO
   2 in pairs?                                            YES  NO
   3 in small groups?                                     YES  NO
   4 in one large group?                                  YES  NO
   5 other (specify please) ..............................

b) Do you want to do homework?                            YES  NO
    If so, how much time do you spend
    for homework outside class hours? ...... hours a day or   ...... hours a week

   How would you like to spend this time?
   1 Preparing for the next class?                        YES  NO
   2 Reviewing the day's work?                            YES  NO
   3 other (specify please)..............................

c) Do you want to

   1 spend all your learning time in the classroom?       YES  NO
   2 spend some time in the classroom and some time
      practising your English with people outside?        YES  NO
   3 other (specify please)..............................

d) Do you like learning

   1 by listening?                                        YES  NO
   2 by reading?                                          YES  NO
   3 by copying from the board?                           YES  NO
   4 by listening and taking notes?                       YES  NO
   5 by reading and making notes?                         YES  NO
   6 by repeating what you hear?                          YES  NO
   7 by making summaries?                                 YES  NO
   8 other (specify please)..............................

e) When learning new vocabulary, do you like
    learning

   1 by using new words in a sentence                     YES  NO
   2 by thinking of relationships between 
     known and new                                        YES  NO
   3 by saying or writing words several times             YES  NO
   4 by avoiding verbatim translation                     YES  NO
   5 by guessing the unknown                              YES  NO
   6 by reading without looking up words                  YES  NO
   7 other (specify please)..............................                [-12-]

f) When you speak do you want to be corrected

   1 immediately, in front of everyone?                   YES  NO
      or...
   2 later, at the end of the activity, in front
     of everyone?                                         YES  NO
   3 later, in private?                                   YES  NO
   4 other (specify please)..............................

g) Do you mind if other students sometimes correct
    your written work?                                    YES  NO

   Do you mind if the teacher sometimes asks you to
   correct your own work?                                 YES  NO

h) Do you like learning from

   1 television/video/films?                              YES  NO
   2 radio?                                               YES  NO
   3 tapes/cassettes?                                     YES  NO
   4 written material?                                    YES  NO
   5 the blackboard?                                      YES  NO
   6 pictures/posters?                                    YES  NO
   7 other (specify please)..............................

i) Do you do the following in your class?

   1 Role play                                            YES  NO
   2 Language games                                       YES  NO
   3 Songs                                                YES  NO
   4 Talking with and listening to other students         YES  NO
   5 Memorising conversations/dialogues                   YES  NO
   6 Getting information from guest speakers              YES  NO
   7 Getting information from planned visits              YES  NO
   8 Writing a learning diary                             YES  NO
   9 Learning about culture                               YES  NO

If so, put a cross (+) next to the five things you find most useful.

j) How do you like to find out how much
   your English is improving?

   By .....
   1 written tasks set by the teacher?                    YES  NO
   2 seeing if you can use the language you have
      learnt in real-life situations?                     YES  NO
   3 other (specify please)..............................

k) Do you get a sense of satisfaction from:

   1 having your work graded?                             YES  NO
   2 being told that you have made progress?              YES  NO
   3 feeling more confident in situations that
      you found difficult before?                         YES  NO
   4 other (specify please)..............................

 [-13-]

	HOW DO YOUR STUDENTS LIKE LEARNING?


Please put a circle around your answer.


Name:
Age:
1 Male
2 Female


Are you satisfied with your students' achievement
in English?                                               YES  NO


a) In class do your students like learning

   1 individually?                                        YES  NO
   2 in pairs?                                            YES  NO
   3 in small groups?                                     YES  NO
   4 in one large group?                                  YES  NO
   5 other (specify please)..............................


c) Do they want to

   1 spend all their learning time in the classroom?      YES  NO
   2 spend some time in the classroom and some time
     practising their English with people outside?        YES  NO
   3 other (specify please)..............................

d) Do they like learning

   1 by listening?                                        YES  NO
   2 by reading?                                          YES  NO
   2 by copying from the board?                           YES  NO
   4 by listening and taking notes?                       YES  NO
   5 by reading and making notes?                         YES  NO
   6 by repeating what you hear?                          YES  NO
   7 by making summaries
   8 other (specify please)..............................

e) When learning new vocabulary, do they like learning

   1 by using new words in a sentence                     YES  NO
   2 by thinking of relationships between
      known and new                                       YES  NO
   3 by saying or writing words several times             YES  NO
   4 by avoiding verbatim translation                     YES  NO
   5 by guessing the unknown                              YES  NO
   6 by reading without looking up words                  YES  NO
   7 other (specify please)..............................

f) When they speak do they want to be corrected

   1 immediately, in front of everyone?                   YES  NO
      or...
   2 later, at the end of the activity, in front
      of everyone?                                        YES  NO
   3 later, in private?                                   YES  NO
   4 other (specify please)..............................              [-14-]

g) Do they mind if other students sometimes correct
    their written work?                                   YES  NO

   Do they mind if you as the teacher sometimes ask
   them to correct their own work?                        YES  NO

h) Do they like learning from

   1 television/video/films?                              YES  NO
   2 radio?                                               YES  NO
   3 tapes/cassettes?                                     YES  NO
   4 written material?                                    YES  NO
   5 the blackboard?                                      YES  NO
   6 pictures/posters?                                    YES  NO
   7 other (specify please)..............................

i) Do you do the following in your class?

   1 Role play                                            YES  NO
   2 Language games                                       YES  NO
   3 Songs                                                YES  NO
   4 Talking with and listening to other students         YES  NO
   5 Memorising conversations/dialogues                   YES  NO
   6 Getting information from guest speakers              YES  NO
   7 Getting information from planned visits              YES  NO
   8 Writing a learning diary                             YES  NO
   9 Learning about culture                               YES  NO

If so, please put a cross (+) next to the five things that
you find most useful.

j) How do you think students like to find out how much
   their English is improving?

   By .....
   1 written tasks set by you?                            YES  NO
   2 seeing if they can use the language they have
     learnt in real-life situations?                      YES  NO
   3 other (specify please)..............................

k) Do you think students get a sense of satisfaction from:

   1 having their work graded?                            YES  NO
   2 being told that they have made progress?             YES  NO
   3 feeling more confident in situations that
      they found difficult before?                        YES  NO
   4 other (specify please)..............................

[-15-]

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor’s Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.

© 1994–2025 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.