Learning styles of ESL students in a modern languages undergraduate program: matching student preferences and teaching materials

3

3rd year

7

Female

Russia

6-8

3

2nd year

8

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

9

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

10

Female

Moscow

6-8

3

3rd year

11

Female

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

12

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

13

Female

Russia

6-8

3

3rd year

14

Female

Russia

6-8

4

2nd year

15

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

16

Female

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

17

Female

Serbia

9>

4

3rd year

18

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

19

Male

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

20

Female

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

21

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

22

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

23

Female

Russia

9>

4

3rd year

24

Female

russia

9>

3

3rd year

25

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

26

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

27

Female

Russia

9>

3

3rd year

28

Female

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

29

Female

Russia

9>

3

2nd year

30

Female

Moldova

9>

5

3rd year

31

Female

Russia

4-6

4

2nd year

32

Female

Russia

6-8

3

3rd year

Table 1 provides information about students' background. There it can be found their sex, native country/city, the number of years of English studying, the number of languages studied and in which year they are currently studying. Further, the results from this table are provided.

The majority of respondents (93%) comes from Russia, 28% of the students are in their second year and the remaining 72% are in their third year. Most of the answerers (90%) are female. The largest part of the examined students (75%) has been learning English for 9 or more years and (84%) knows 3 languages.

77% of 3rd year students have been studying English for 9 or more years, 13% for 6-8 years and 10% for less than 6 years. 66% of students in their 2nd year have been studying English for 9 or more years and 33% for less than 6 years.86% of 3rd year students know 3 languages, 9% - 4 languages and 3% - 5 languages. 77% of students in their 2nd year know 3 languages, 33% know 4 languages and 0% - 5 languages.

Appendix 4 contains information about the atmosphere in the classroom, whether students have fun during classes or not, how they can describe the atmosphere and on what they think it can depend. Moreover, the table contains information about student's view on who is responsible for their marks and whether their marks rely on teachers' explanation of tasks. Finally, data about students' performance is given prom their and their teachers' point of view.

The majority of respondents (81%) claim that their teachers asses them the same way they do. However there exist students (15%) whose performance is achieved by professors lower that students consider it to be and only 3% of students are assessed higher than they believe they should be.

A quarter of the students does not have fun during English lessons and 50% of these students are assessed lower than they consider they should be. 83% of the students who get marks lower than they believe they should do, claim that their scores depend on the way the teachers explain the tasks.

38 % of the students whose marks meet their expectations believe their scores do not depend on the way teachers describe the exercises. 61 % of same students do not agree with them in this.

34% of the students do never get poor marks because the tasks were explained with the usage of useless materials. 50% of the students have not got high scores in such situations a few times. 15% of the respondents claim this is a common problem and happens quite often.

50% of the students who does never request another explanation of the assignment get poor marks because misunderstanding and remaining students do not consider their poor marks stem from this fact and/or do not get poor marks.

77% of the students who ask for repeated and/or other explanation get anticipated marks and 28% get lower marks.88% of students who hesitate asking other clarification agree with their teachers about their performance and 11% get lower scores.

31% of answerers do not ask their teachers to explain the task utilizing other materials if they do not understand it.56% of students does it sometimes and only 6% does it always.

40% of the students who never asks their teacher to make clear the assignment believe their teachers are responsible for their scores, but still the majority of 60% dos not agree that their scores depend on this fact.

9% of the respondents claim not to need any changes in the teaching process. 43% of the students want the professors to utilize other materials during lessons and 100% of these students believe not only this should be changed. 64% of these students would like the teachers to increase their motivation to study, 64% of these students require teachers to check students' understanding of instructions and 57% would prefer to practice other language skills.

43% of the answerers believe teachers might practice other language skills during classes, 100% of these students require other changes too. 78% would like the professors to raise their motivation, 35% need to be checked in their understanding of the task.

40% of the answerers might have problems while receiving instructions as they require checking these instructions. 41% of these students also need to be trained other language skills and 7% believe this to be the only thing needs change during the teaching process.

15% of the students consider the only problem to be their lack of motivation. 3% of the students need other changes.

83% of the students who get lower marks than expected believe their teachers need to use other materials. 66% also require their teachers to check their understanding of the tasks. 83% would prefer to be more motivated by the teacher and 20% of these students believe this is the only thing they require t be changed.

18% of the students get poor marks and 83% of them are not motivated to study. 50% of them want teachers to utilize other materials and 50% require other language skills to be trained.

43% of the respondents get good marks and 57% of them would prefer to practice other language skills. 50% of them want other materials to be used and 7 % require other changes.

84% of students who want their teachers to check instruction understanding asks them to clarify the tasks and 16% do not.92% of these students have ever got poor marks because the teacher explained the task inappropriately and 8% do never got low scores due to this reason.

50% of the students who get poor marks believe their teachers are responsible for it as explained the tasks poorly, 35% of students who get good marks claim this is not be due the reason in the previous sentence and 27% of students with excellent marks agree with them in it.

31% of respondents tend to believe that the atmosphere in the classroom is friendly, 40% of these students believe the atmosphere does not depend on topics discussed and materials used during the lesson, 50% think it also depends on topics and 30% on materials.

28% of interviewees claim that the atmosphere in the classroom is with minimal participation and 77% do not believe this fact to be connected with classroom materials or topics, 33% think it depends on topics and 11% on materials. 6% of the students believe the atmosphere in the class totally relies on the materials utilized there and 15% that it depends only on topic learned. 28% of respondents consider both factors to affect the atmosphere inside the class.

83% of students who believe the atmosphere in the classroom to depend on materials can ask the teacher to utilize other materials when do not understand the task. 40% of respondents which claim the atmosphere in their classroom is friendly do not believe their marks depend on the way teachers explain tasks. However, 75% of these students got poor marks at due to the fact that did not understand the instructions at least one time.

36% of students who believe that the atmosphere relies on the materials need to be more motivated by the teacher, however only 28% of want the teacher to change the materials utilized during lessons .16% of these students would prefer to train other language skills and 20% to get checked if they understood the instructions correctly.

28% of respondents which believe the atmosphere depends on materials used in the classroom and want them to be changed get scores lower than they believe they should do. 14% of the same students do not have fun during classes. 61% of students who have ever got bad marks due to teachers' poor task explication have good marks in general, 19% get low scores.

75% of students get feedback the way they would like to. When learning how to cope with new things 59% of students get the explanation in their preferred way. 62% of students are happy with the materials provided by the teacher.

Student's learning styles:



Table 3. Students' and teachers' learning styles.

Student\Student's Style	Visual (V)	Aural (A)	Read/write (R)	Kinaesthetic(K)	Student's Stylenumber	Student's Style	Student's teacher\ student's teacher's style	Visual (V)	Aural (A)	Read/write (R)	Kinaesthetic(K)	Student's teacher\ student's teacher's style number	Student's teacher\ student's teacher's style	Does student and teacher's student's learning styles match?
1	4	2	4	7	1	K	1	1	1	1	1	4	VARK	Yes
2	8	11	8	13	2	KA	2	0	3	3	2	3	ARK	Yes
3	10	8	8	11	2	KV	3	1	0	3	0	2	RV	Partially
4	10	9	2	13	1	K	4	1	2	2	1	4	ARVK	Yes
5	7	5	7	14	1	K	5	1	1	2	3	4	RKAV	Yes
6	9	6	5	10	2	KV	6	0	3	2	1	3	ARK	Partially
7	4	4	1	9	1	K	7	0	1	2	1	3	RAK	Yes
8	5	3	4	13	1	K	8	0	3	2	3	3	AKR	Yes
9	3	7	6	10	1	K	9	1	2	3	1	4	RAVK	Yes
10	5	9	8	11	2	KA	10	0	3	1	1	3	ARK	Yes
11	7	12	5	10	2	KA	11	0	3	3	1	3	ARK	Yes
12	6	9	5	7	2	AK	12	0	4	0	0	1	A	Yes
13	3	3	8	3	1	R	13	0	0	3	1	2	RK	Yes
14	5	10	8	14	1	K	14	0	4	4	2	3	ARK	Yes
15	5	9	1	14	1	K	15	0	2	2	0	2	AR	No
16	10	3	12	11	3	RKV	16	0	3	2	0	2	AR	Partially
17	2	7	5	4	2	AR	17	0	3	0	1	2	AR	Yes
18	3	4	8	10	2	KR	18	0	1	2	2	3	RKA	Yes
19	7	8	8	9	3	KRA	19	1	4	1	1	4	AVRK	No
20	4	4	7	10	2	KR	20	0	3	1	0	2	AR	Partially
21	8	4	5	13	1	K	21	0	4	1	1	3	ARK	Partially
22	9	10	5	14	1	K	22	1	1	3	1	4	RAVK	Yes
23	1	9	2	13	1	K	23	0	3	2	2	3	ARK	Yes
24	4	5	5	2	3	RAV	24	0	0	2	2	2	RK	Partially
25	4	7	10	12	2	KR	25	0	3	0	1	2	AK	Partially
26	0	7	11	10	2	RK	26	0	3	1	1	3	ARK	Yes
27	5	4	3	5	4	VKAR	27	0	2	1	1	3	ARK	Partially
28	5	15	0	11	1	A	28	0	2	2	2	3	ARK	Yes
29	7	11	3	12	2	KA	29	0	4	1	0	2	AR	Partially
30	7	10	4	13	1	K	30	1	1	3	3	4	RKAV	Yes
31	8	8	6	7	4	VAKR	31	0	3	3	3	3	ARK	Partially
32	6	12	4	7	1	A	32	0	1	2	1	3	RAK	Yes

Table 3 contains information about to which extent every student possesses a learning style, to which extent every student's teacher possess a learning style and to which extent students' needs are matched by teachers. Further, there are conclusions from this table.

46% of the students possess and utilize more than one learning style. 6% of the students have 4 styles, 9% have 3 styles, 37% have 2 styles and 53% utilize only one style. 60% of students who know 4 or more languages have 1 modality,20% - 2 modalities and 20% - 4 modalities.

50% of respondents who have 4 learning styles has been studying English for 9 or more years and 50% for 6 or more.100% of students who possess 3 modalities have been studying English for 9 or more years. 91% of students who possess 2 styles have been studying for 9 or more years and 9% for 6 or more.47% of student with only one modality ty have been studying English for 9 or more years, 23% for 6-8, 5% for 4-6 and 5% for less than 4 consequently.

57% of students who have been studying English for more than 9 years have 2 or more learning styles. 66% of respondents who have been studying English for 6 or less years possess only one style.

88% of student with multiple learning styles have the kinaesthetic modality and 66% of them have this modality as the dominant one. 13% have visual modality as the strongest, also 13% tend to use reading while learning and 13% are aural learners to the biggest extent.

13% of multiple styles students choose visual modality as their strength, 20% are readers to greater extent and 13% are aural learners.

47% of the respondents possess only one modality to a greater extent and 78% of them are kinaesthetic learners. 66% of the remaining students are audial and 34% are readers. There are no students which are only visual.

71 % of students who have one dominant learning style get approximately same scores for the remaining ones. Only 6% of the students claim that they do not use one modality at all. 50 % do not utilize reading and 50% are not visual.

65% of students have the kinaesthetic modality as their dominant one,15% of the respondents are mostly kinaesthetic and aural, 6% are kinaesthetic-visual, 6% are KR, 3% are AK, 3% are RK, 3% are AR, 3% are RKV, 3% are KRA, 3% are RAV, 3% are VKAR and 3% are VAKR.

23% of students whose dominant style is kinaesthetic get bad marks, 42% get good marks and 33% get excellent marks. 20% of previous students have aural style as their second dominant and 50% of them get good scores. 100% of students whose first style is kinaesthetic, and second visual get excellent marks. 80% of KR students get good marks.

Aural students do not get poor marks, only good or excellent with equal probability. Students who are only aural get good marks, but students who combine this style with others as their second dominant get only excellent marks. Visual students get only good marks, neither excellent, nor bad. 75% of readers get excellent marks and 25% very bad marks and it does not depend on their second modality.

97% of students teachers' have multiple learning styles and are considered to be: 34% - ARK, 15%- AR, 6 % - RKAV, 6 % - RAK, 6% - RAVK, 6% - RAK, 3% - VARK, 3% - RV, 3% - ARVK, 3% - AKR, 3% - RKA, 3% AVRK, 3% -RK, 3% - AK learners. Therefore it can be concluded that 91% of teachers are partially aural, 100% of teachers have read modality, 79% are partially kinaesthetic, 24% are partially visual, 3% of teachers are believed to possess and utilize only one learning style which is aural.

3% of teachers are mostly visual.65% of teachers have the aural modality as dominant, 85% of whom have read modality as the second dominant. 32% are readers/writers and 0% are kinaesthetic to a greater extent.

31% of students are considered to have needs matched by teacher materials partially, 62% of respondents' styles completely correspond to the styles utilized by teachers and 6% have totally different styles with their teachers.

53% of matched students have 2 or more learning styles. 73% of teachers of students who consider them to be responsible for addressing the diversity of learning styles utilize 3 or 4 learning styles.

33% of 2nd year students are completely matched by teaching materials, 44% are partially matched and 22% are not matched at all. 68% of 3rd year students are completely matched by teaching materials,27 % are partially matched and 4% are not matched at all.

85% of matched students are so because they and their teachers have and utilize kinaesthetic modality, 40% because they are aural, 36% because readers and 20% as visuals.

24% of students who have fun during classes are partially matched, 56% are totally matched and 8% are not matched. 80% of students having fun study kinaesthetically. 37% of students who do not have fun are partially matched, 50% are totally matched and 1% is not matched. 72% of students whose teachers utilize 3 or 4 learning styles have fun during classes.

42% of totally matched students get excellent marks, 42% get good marks and 16% get bad marks. 40% of partially matched students get excellent marks, 30% get good marks and 30% get bad marks. 100% of unmatched students receive good marks.

100% of students who think the atmosphere in the classroom is friendly are matched by teachers' learning styles. 80% of students whose teachers utilize 3 or 4 learning styles consider the atmosphere in the classroom to be friendly. 100% of responders whose needs are not matched even partially believe the atmosphere in the classroom to be with minimal participation and 50% think it also depends on materials and topics of the class.

77% of students whose teachers reveal 1 or 2 learning styles do not feel a friendly atmosphere in the classroom. 33% of these students claim there is minimal participation during classes, 20% think the problem is in materials used and 33% in topics discussed.

64% of the students which want to be provided other materials are matched partially, 28% are totally matched by teaching materials and 7% are not matched at all. 50% of students who want to be provided other materials have teachers who utilize only one learning style, 42% who utilize 2 styles and 8% - 3 styles.

65% of totally matched students have been studying English for 9 or more years, 25% for 6-8 years, 5% - 4-6 years and 5% - 4 years. 90% of partially matched students have been studying English for 9 or more years, 10% for 4-6 years and 0% - 6-8 or 4 or less years. 100% of unmatched students have been studying English for 9 or more years.

59% of students who know 3 languages are totally matched, 80% of respondents who know 4 or more languages are totally matched.

41% of unmatched or partially matched students need their teacher to use other materials, 33% require to train other language skills, 41% might have problems with instruction understanding, 61% want their teachers to increase their motivation, 8% require other changes and 8% do not need alterations at all.

45% of matched students need their teacher to use other materials, 50% require to train other language skills, 40% might have problems with instruction understanding, 75% want their teachers to increase their motivation, 0% require other changes and 1% do not need alterations at all.

63% of totally matched students ask their teachers to explain the tasks utilizing other materials, 70 % of partially matched and 100% of unmatched students do it.45% of totally matched students have never got poor parks because of instructions misunderstanding. 25% of totally matched students do not think their scores depend on their teachers' tasks explanation.

Discussion

The five major question in this study were:

What is the most common learning style profile of ESL students in a modern languages undergraduate program?

Do students with different learning style have different levels of knowledge?

To which extent the preferences of students with different learning styles are matched?

Is the performance of students whose preferences are matched higher that on students whose studying styles are different from the styles used in teaching materials?

What materials should teachers use in order to match partially every student's needs?

You can see the answers to these questions in the conclusions below.

Cultural differences of respondents which took part in the survey cannot be examined as the majority of them come from the same country which is Russia. The relationship between sex and learning style preference cannot be investigated too as most of the answerers are female but can be seen in other studies (Mulalic et al., 2009). However, it can be concluded that there are more females than males at this bachelor program and/or males do not like to answer questionnaires.

Most of the students have been learning English before entering the university which is not extraordinary as it was impossible to be enrolled without English exams results. On the other hand, it is pivotal to note that there exist students who had started learning this language shortly before passing the exams.

Most students know 3 languages which means they do not study languages apart from the required ones at university. It is easy to see that with ages students commence studying more languages therefore the percentage of students knowing 4 and more languages is higher between the students in their 3rd year.

The fact that most of students are assessed exactly as they consider they should be means that teachers are objective and/or students do not understand their performance and therefore agree with their teachers. Despite this fact there are still students assessed lower which might mean the grading system or assessment criteria are not objective and/ or suitable. Moreover, it is possible that some teachers are not objective or do not provide tasks for every learning style.

Poor academic achievement can be related to the fact that students do not have fun during classes. Furthermore, a half of students say the fault is in their teachers as tasks explanation is not understandable. This problem can be solved by asking teachers to explain the tasks using other materials and methods as many students who does it get anticipated marks.

Moreover, it is an effective idea to check understanding after giving instructions. However only 6% of students do never hesitate to ask a second explanation even though most of them have ever got poor marks due to this reason. It may mean that the relationship teacher-students is not so trusting at it could be. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that these students do not have problems with their academic performance in general.

A lot of students seem to lack suitable materials for learning efficiently. The same quantity of respondents thinks more language skills must be trained. Still the most important change should be implemented by teachers is increasing students' motivation as almost all students affirm it to be a problem.

Less than a half of respondents consider the class atmosphere to be friendly and half of these students do also think it depend on the topics discussed during classes. Students with almost no participation during classes affirm it happens not due to poor materials or wrong topics.

Fortunately, the majority of students receive feedback after completing tasks in the way they understand it and it can help. Teachers tend to explain new types of tasks so that the explanation fits the greatest part of students. Moreover, more than a half of respondents do not see the materials given by teachers unsuitable.

Concerning learning styles of students, most them have and use only one style. On the second place there are students with two learning styles. It seems that the more you study the more learning styles you start implementing into the process, therefore students learning with the usage of 4 different learning styles have been studying English for 6 or more years.

The answer to the first question of this study is that the most common learning style of students learning at FLACC is kinaesthetic as well as of their teachers' and this finding is in line with literature (Mulalic et al., 2009). Aural students are on the second place and next come readers. There are almost no visuals and moreover there are no students who are only visual. Students with multiple learning styles tend to have ono strong modality and to utilize others to an equal extent.

With respect to students' teachers there is a positive trend to possess and utilize multiple learning styles. The data provides such a response to the third question: most students is matched by teaching materials partially and a third of respondents is matched totally. Unfortunately, there are still students whose styles differ from the styles of materials.

3rd year students are matched to a greater extent which may signify that 3rd year program is better designed and/ or that the more they study, the easier it becomes as student commence utilizing other learning styles.

There is a positive relationship between the fact that students are matched by their teachers and the fun during classes. Moreover, the more styles the teacher utilize, the more fun students have. The majority of matched or partially matched students get good or excellent marks. Unmatched students do not get excellent marks.

All students who think the atmosphere in the classroom is friendly are matched by their teachers' materials mostly with the usage of 3 or 4 learning styles. All unmatched students see the atmosphere in the classroom as unfriendly and a third of them believe it also relies on materials and topics.

Students who need other materials from their teachers are matched only partially and have teachers with only one or 2 learning styles. The majority of unmatched or partially matched students have problems with their motivation.

There is a positive correlation between the number of languages known by the students and the number of learning styles in their possession. Most of matched students have never got poor marks because misunderstanding of the tasks and many same students can ask their teachers to explain it again.

According to the data gathered, despite the fact that there are more kinaesthetic dominant students there are 0 teachers who are kinaesthetic to a greater extent. However, it seems that the fact that the majority of teachers use more than one style gives the students the possibility to get good marks.

Most of teacher are aural and there is a positive effect that can be noticed: aural students get only good and excellent marks which reveals a connection between the match of teacher and student learning styles and students' marks.

No relationship between student's style and motivation, student's style and performance were discovered as not student's styles affect them, but the extent to which these styles are matched. These results are concurrent with the study of Almendra & Becerra, 2018 and answer the 4th question.

Recommendations

This section provides recommendations regarding the selection of teaching materials and assignments for general accounting. According to Felder (1993) teachers who want to utilize learning styles into the teaching process need to follow concrete advice.

Theoretical material should be accompanied by schemes and diagrams which will help explain the theory and how it can be implemented.

There should be a balance between concrete and conceptual information which means teachers have to provide students with theory along with experiments and real situations.

New material should be demonstrated as logical and/or consequent facts from previous data or from other disciplines in order to create a relationship between phenomena and sciences.

Students need be cognizant of the fact they are not stupid or bad, but they are different, and their learning styles must be respected by others.

Following recommendations were made on the basis of information in the section “Discussion”:

It is pivotal to analyse and measure student's progress after any change was implemented to appreciate the effects of this modification objectively. Then, other alterations can be required (Stewart, 1990).Moreover, in situations when school administration does not realize the importance of learning styles matching, teachers can try to create overall learning styles program to make it possible to develop curriculums which will fit partially all student's needs. (Stewart, 1990; Oxford 1990).

In 1987 Cohen described her attempt to implement learning styles which consisted of several phases: planning, implementation, and evaluation. During this process, a learning styles committee was created which facilitated and structured the realization of the plan. After learning styles introduction, teachers continued to be instructed, students parent attended conferences were the intermediate results were discussed and finally evaluated.

It is recommendable to check the grading system and the assessment criteria to discover whether any students' styles are neglected. Moreover, not only the criteria should be checked, but also all the curriculum so that every learning style becomes implemented in the program. Concerning the answer for question number 5, it is obvious that materials should be modified and modernized as a great number of students is dissatisfied with them. Furthermore, the curriculum should be designed in such a way that all language skills are trained to the same extent in order to make the student ready for any real-life situation. All in all, teachers should be given more freedom in choosing the materials as a variety of teaching methods has positive effects on the atmosphere in the classroom and on students' progress (Mondal, 2011).

Students should be provided tasks which will make the studying process funnier and will bring joy. Tasks which are slightly above students' competence can be also useful as they will motivate them to work harder and overcome difficulties (Kruk & Zawodniak, 2019). Furthermore, teachers must check understanding of instructions to prevent poor marks or demotivation in accordance to it. Apart from this, credible relationships must be developed speaking with students about the importance of making mistakes and doubting, as these are movers of progress. Students should not be afraid to be wrong or to seem stupid because they need to clarify the task. Teachers, in turn, should not underestimate students' abilities as their poor scores could have related to the fact that they were taught using unsuitable materials and teachers' doubts can make students frustrated (Jahiel, 2008).

In accordance to the data not many students find the atmosphere in the classroom friendly which can be also a result of untrusting relationships. Apart from the fact that it can happen because learning styles of the majority of students are not matched by teaching materials, this problem can stem from poor materials or uninteresting lesson topics. Special attention should be paid to the second-year curriculum as it seems to be less orientated towards different learning styles.

In order to make the number of poor marks decrease, teachers and students should work in a team and endeavour to conclude in deep understanding of each other during the process of instruction giving. Despite the fact the academic performance of students who have ever got poor marks because of misunderstanding is high, these poor marks can create demotivation, degrade their self-esteem (Jahiel, 2008) in future and such problems should be prevented from the very beginning. Any students' drawbacks can become their strengths with the aid of a variety of teaching methods matching diverse learning styles (Mondal, 2011;)

According to the fact that a great quantity of respondents possesses only one learning style, it will be efficient to train students to adapt to unfamiliar tasks and materials. They should be able to perceive the tasks and individualize it so that the thinking tunes to the task. Every person it is ready to utilize any learning styles in uncommon situations (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Predominantly learning is not only the result of cognition, but also the result of a person's ability to adapt to the environment, to changes the ways of thinking and perceiving (Gogus & Gunes, 2011). Students should be taught what learning styles exist, how and when to use them appropriately to get out the maximum from it. Furthermore, “EFL learners should have flexible learning beliefs and attempt to diversify their learning techniques” as Nosratinia& Soleimannejad (2016) believe.

Moreover, it could be noted that the augmentation of the number of known languages does also affect the ability to utilize different learning styles. Therefore, it would be recommended to study more than 3 languages.

As it was discovered that when students' and teacher's dominant styles differ the marks are lower, it will be recommended to train teachers not to communicate one style as dominant. Moreover, having a dominant style is also not favourable for students as from the perspective of creating social knowledge through the converting of experience, students with one style which is much more used than other, are not capable to do it (Gogus & Gunes, 2011). Therefore, it can be concluded that students with different learning styles have different level of knowledge which is the answer for the second question. I consider it does not stem from the style they chose but form the amount to which this style is matched by teaching materials.

On the other hand, only few students are considered not to be match to any extent by their teachers' learning and/or teaching styles therefore it may be possible that is not extremely necessary to find out all students' learning styles but it will be sufficient if teachers balance their styles in order not to cause acute mismatch ( Peacock, 2001).

Apart from the styles which were utilized in this survey, there are other learning styles which must be examined during the teaching process in order to find out whether students prefer studying alone or in groups and other information. Measuring the progress of students in different situation is a crucial aim for educators as it was proved that students differ in their preferences and abilities while working in groups or alone (Wright, 2016).

Furthermore, further research should include the variation between data collection styles as information gathered through tests and surveys can differ from the one collected during observation.



Conclusions

Previous literature examination firmly displays the fact that learning styles play an extremely important role in the learning and teaching process and being aware of them makes students acquire knowledge more effectively. Not only literature and previous surveys, but also this study reveals the difference in the learning styles of students.

The findings present diverse characteristics of the study population in terms of demographics and reveal the importance of matching teaching materials with students' learning styles, especially when we speak about ESL students.

Results from the data accumulated through the current questionnaire aided to find out that ESL students are mostly kinaesthetic. Moreover, most of the students are matched by teachers' materials at least partially and the amount to which they are matched affect their motivation and classroom atmosphere. The data also suggests that students' ability to utilize multiple learning styles rely on the number of languages learned and the period they learn them. Finally, it is pleasant to notice that most of the finding are in line with literature on the topic.

Fortunately, all the questions set the to be answered were answered. Therefore, it was discovered that students with different learning styles have different levels of knowledge and different performance and but not due to these styles, but because of the extent to which these styles are matched. The preferences of kinaesthetic students are matched to a greater extent as they constitute the greatest part of students and teachers endeavor to utilize multiple styles.

There is ample evidence to indicate that teachers should not negate the existence of learning styles and the crucial need for their implementation. Moreover, it would be recommended to check instructions understanding, to develop trusting teacher-student relationships, to give feedback in the way students perceive it better, to motivate students learn more than 3 languages.

The results of this study should be interpreted with caution due to its limitations. Concerning them it would be recommendable to conduct the same study among other age groups, other universities and/or schools and with the analysis of teachers' learning styles from their own perspectives, not from students' ones. Moreover, the assessment of overall achievement should be also found out from teachers to provide more exact and relevant data and discover whether there is actually no relationship between learning styles students possess and their achievement. On the other hand, further study can be conducted in order to examine the difference in styles between sexes.



References

1. Abdullah, J., Zafar M., Farid A. (2018). ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING STYLES OF UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS USING VARK QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE INFLUENCE OF SEX AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE. INDO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, 05(10), 10401-10410.

2. Akbari, S., Ghanbari, A., & Talab, M. G. (2013). Learning Styles and Academic Performance of Students in Learning English as a Second Language Class in Iran. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 322-333.

3. Allinnson, C. W. and Hayes, J. (1988). 'The Learning Styles Questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb's inventory?'. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 269-81

4. Allinson, Christopher W. and Hayes, John. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies. 1996, Vol. v33, Issue n1, pages. 17 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.

5. Almendra, M. P. R. , & Becerra, B. L. G. (2018). Effect of Problem Based Learning through Differentiable Learning Styles in the Teaching of Statistics. American Journal of Educational Research, 6(11), 1487-1496.

6. Ashton-Hay, S. (2006). Constructivism and powerful learning environments: Create your own! Paper presented at the 9th International English Language Teaching Convention: The Fusion of Theory and Practice, Middle Eastern Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

7. Baltulionis, Simonas, Turenko, Vilius, Vasiljevas, Mindaugas, Damaрeviиius, Robertas, & Sidekerskienл, Tatjana. (2019). Validation of VARK questionnaire using gaze tracking data. CEUR Workshop Proceedings: IVUS

8. Barry, M., & Egan, A. (2018). An Adult Learner's Learning Style Should Inform but Not Limit Educational Choices. International Review of Education, 64(1), 31-42.

9. Boatman, K., Courtney, R., & Lee, W. (2008). See how they learn: The impact of faculty and student learning styles on student performance in introductory economics. American Economist, 52(1), 39-48

10. Brunner, C. & Majewski, W. (1990). Mildly Handicapped Students Can Succeed with Learning Styles. Educational Leadership, v48 n2 p19-21

11. Burke, K., & Dunn, R. (2003). Learning style-based teaching to raise minority student test scores. Social Studies, 94(4), 167-170.

12. Cafferty, E. (1980). An analysis of student performance based upon the degree of match between the educational cognitive style of teachers and the educational cognitive style of the students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska.

13. Campbell, B. J. (1991). Planning for a student learning style. Journal of Education for Business, 66(6), 356-359

14. Carbo, M. (1980). An analysis of the relationship between the modality preferences of kindergarteners and selected reading treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight-word vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation, St John's university, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41/04A, 1939. (University Microfilms No. 80-21790)

15. Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444

16. Cheng, F., Chiu, C., Wu, C. and Tsaih, D. (2017), "The influence of learning style on satisfaction and learning effectiveness in the asynchronous web-based learning system", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 473-489. Vol. 125, p146-157. 12p.

17. Clark-Thayer, S. (1988). Designing study skills programs based on individual learning styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter New York: St. John's University and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 9(3), 1, 4.

18. Claxton, C. S., Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices. Ashe-Eric Higher Education Report, 4, 1-116

19. Cohen, L. (1987). Learning with style: Ten steps in a learning style project. Middle School Journal 18(August): 17-19.

20. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. LSRC reference, Learning & Skills Research Centre, London.

21. Cook, L. (1989). Relationships among learning style awareness, academic achievement, and locus of control among community college students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(03), 217A.

22. Copenhaver, R. (1979). The consistency of student learning styles as students move from English to mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

23. Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50-56.

24. Curry, Lynn. (1983). An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs

25. David, C. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Cambridge, Basic Blackwell.

26. Domino, G. (1970). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement. ACT Research Report, 39, 1-9.

27. Drenoyianni H, Selwood Ian, and Riding Richard. (2002). Searching Using 'Microsoft® EncartaTM'. A Study of Cognitive Style Effects on Secondary Students' Strategies. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Education, Arch. Mouseiou 29, 546 40, Thessaloniki, Greece

28. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willinghm, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58

29. Dunn R. (1983). Learning styles and its relation to exceptionality at both ends of the spectrum. Exceptional Children, 49, 496-506

30. Dunn R. (1984). Learning style: state of the scene. Theory into practice, 23, 10-19

31. Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn Answers Questions on Learning Styles.

32. Dunn, R., Bruno, J., Sklar, R.I., Zenhausern, R., & Beaudry, J. (1990). Effects of matching and mismatching minority developmental college students' hemisphere preferences on mathematic scores. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications. Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 283-288.

33. Dunn, R., Deckinger, E.L., Withers, P., & Katzenstein, H. (1990). Should college students be taught how to so homework? The effects of studying marketing through individual perceptual strengths. Illinois School Research and development: Journal. Normal, IL: Illinois Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development, 26(3), 96-113.

34. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they...can they...be matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238.

35. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1979). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.

36. Dunn, R., S. A. Griggs, J. Olson, B. Gorman, and M. Beasley. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. Journal of Educational Research 88 (6): 353-61.

37. Dunn, R., & Stevenson, J. M. (1997). Teaching diverse college students to study within a learning-styles prescription. College Student Journal, 31(3), 333.

38. Dunn, R., Honigsfeld, A., Doolan, L., Bostrom, L., Russo, K., Schiering, M., …Tenedero, H. (2009). Impact of Learning-Style Instructional Strategies on Students' Achievement and Attitudes: Perceptions of Educators in Diverse Institutions. Clearing House, 82(3), 135- 140.

39. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

40. Farr, B.J. (1971). Individual differences in learning: Predicting one's more effective learning modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Catholic university.

41. Favre, L. (2007). Analysis of the transition of a low socioeconomic status African American New Orleans elementary school into a demonstration learning-style school of excellence. Journal of Urban Education 4 (1): 79-90.

42. Felder, R.M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Sci. Teach. 23(5):286-90.

43. Ferdenzi, A. C., S. A. Griggs, and R. Dunn. (1998/1999). The key to improve academic achievement: Parents use modality-responsive home learning strategies. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal 9 (1): 50-56.

44. Fine, D. (2003). A sense of learning style. Principal Leadership 4 (2): 55-59.

45. Ford, J.H., Robinson, J.M. & Wise, M.E. (2016). Adaptation of the Grasha Riechman Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory to assess individual teaching and learning styles in a quality improvement collaborative. BMC Med Educ 16, 252.

46. Ford, Nigel & Chen, Sherry Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. Oxford: Blackwell. British journal of educational technology. 32(1):5-22.

47. Frisby, C. L. (2005). Learning Styles. Sage Publications, Inc.

48. Geake, J. (2008). `Neuromythologies in education' Educational Research Vol. 50, No. 2, June 2008, 123-133.

49. Geiser, W. F. (1998). Effects of learning-style awareness and responsive study strategies on achievement in, incidence of study of, and attitude toward mathematics of suburban eighth-grade students. PhD diss., St. John's Univ., 1999. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, publ. nr. 59(07), (2405A): 247.

50. Grasha, A.F (1987) Practical Applications of psychology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown

51. Grasha A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Bernadino: Alliance Publishers.

52. Gregorc A.F. (1982). Gregorc Style Delineator. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

53. Gregorc, A.F. (1979). Learning/Teaching Styles: Potent Forces Behind Them. Educational Leadership; Vol. 36 Issue 4, p234, 3p 1979 UNITED States

54. Griggs, S.A. & Dunn, R.S. (1984). Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 115-119.

55. Gogus, A., & Gunes, H. (2011). Learning Styles and Effective Learning Habits of University Students: A Case from Turkey. College Student Journal, 45(3), 586.

56. Gove, W. (Ed.). (1980). The labelling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective. New York, NY: Wiley.

57. Guilloteaux, M. J., and Z. Dцrnyei. (2008). “Motivating Language Learners: A Classroom-Oriented Investigation of the Effects of Motivational Strategies on Student Motivation.” TESOL Quarterly 42 (1): 55-77.

58. Hartnett, D.O. (1975). The relation of cognitive style and hemispheric preference to deductive and inductive second language learning. Master's thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

59. Hodges, H. (1983). Learning styles; rx for mathophobia. Arithmetic Teacher, 30 (7), 17-20.

60. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1982), The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead.

61. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986), Using Your Learning Styles, 2nd ed., Peter Honey, Maidenhead.

62. Howard-Jones, P.A. (2014), `Evolutionary Perspectives on Mind, Brain and Education', Mind, Brain, and Education. 8, 1, p. 21-33 13 p.

63. Hsu, T. E., Frederick, F. J., & Chung, M. (1994). Effects of Learner Cognitive Styles and Metacognitive Tools on Information Acquisition Paths and learning in Hyperspace Environment. Proceedings of Selected Research and Association for Educational Communications and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Technology

64. Jahiel, J. (2008). What's your learning styles? Practical Horseman, 36(3), 32-37.

65. Jenkins, J.M. (1982). Teaching to individual student learning styles. The Administrator, 6 (1), 10-12

66. Jung, Carl G. (1971). Psychological Types (R.F.C. Hall, trans.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

67. Karabuga, F. (2015). Match or Mismatch Between Learning Styles of Prep-Class EFL Students and EFL Teachers. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12(2), 276.

68. Karuppan, C. (2001). "Web-based teaching materials: a user's profile", Internet Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 138-149.

69. Kazu, Y. (2009). The effect of learning styles on education and the teaching process. Journal of Social Sciences 5(2): 85-94.

70. Keefe J., Monk J. (1988). Learning style profile examiner's manual. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

71. KHALILI, A., AJIDEH, P., & YAGHOUBI-NOTASH, M. (2017). An Investigation of Learning Styles as Sources of Bias in Second Language Grammar Tests. English Teacher, 46(2), 88.

72. Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171

73. Kirton, M. (1976)."Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure", Journal of Applied Psychology (61:5), pp 622-629.

74. Klein, P.D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternative to “learning styles” and “multiple intelligences.” J. Curriculum Studies, 35, 45-81.

75. Kolb D.A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory: Self scoring inventory and interpretation booklet. Boston: McBer and Company.

76. Kolb, A. Y & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management. Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212.

77. Kruk Mariusz & Joanna Zawodniak. (2019). On the possible interactions of

78. varied EFL activities and learning styles with EFL students' motivational changes, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13:2, 178-193,

79. Kumar L. R. & Chacko T. V. (2010). Using appreciative inquiry on learning styles to facilitate student learning. MEDICAL EDUCATION -OXFORD-. [s. l.], n. 11, p. 1121, 2010.

80. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 315-350.

81. Lauria, Jennifer. (2010). Differentiation through Learning-Style Responsive Strategies, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47:1, 24-29

82. Lefkowitz, R. F. (2001). Effects of traditional versus learning-style presentation of course content in medical/legal issues in health care on the achievement and attitudes of college students.

83. Lemmon, P. (1982). Step by step leadership into learning styles. Early Years, 12(5), 36, 12.

84. Lenehan, M.C., Dunn, R., Ingham, J., Murray, W., & Signer, B. (1994). Learning style: Necessary know-how for academic success in college. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 461-466.

85. Levine, G. S. (2011). Code Choice in the Language Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

86. Li-fang Zhang. (2010). Do thinking styles contribute to metacognition beyond self-rated abilities? Educational Psychology, 30:4, 481-494

87. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

88. Loo R. (2004). Kolb's learning styles and learning preferences: is there a linkage? Educational Psychology, 24(1), 99-108.

89. Masruddin. (2018). Learning style in a language learning classroom. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching & Learning, Linguistics & Literature; 2018, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p115-124, 10p

90. Messick, S. (1984). The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice. Educational EIY.C115214gialo .12(2), 59-74.

91. Michael D. Sankey, Dawn Birch, and Michael W. Gardiner. (2011). “The Impact of Multiple Representations of Content Using Multimedia on Learning Outcomes across Learning Styles and Modal Preferences,” International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology 7, no. 3 (2011): 18-35.