1. S.İpek KURU-GÖNEN Anadolu University, TURKEY ipekkuru@anadolu.edu.tr
The Relationship between Perceptual Learning Styles and Language Learning Strategies of Tertiary Level Turkish EFL Students
S.İpek KURU-GÖNEN
Anadolu University, TURKEY

2. Background
Recent years witnessed a tremendous interest in understanding how good learners learn a foreign language achieve success
Good language learners share some behaviors for learning
Attempts at understanding these common points might help to facilitate our understanding of the learning process of second/foreign language
Learning styles and learning strategies language learning success in EFL/ESL classroom

3. Background
Learning style “an individual’s natural habitual and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1995, p.34)
It involves perception, cognition, conceptualization, affect and behavior peculiar to one’s own individual learning
Learning strategy consciously selected processes which may result in action specific behaviors learners select

4. Background
Language learning styles may be indicators of specific language learning strategies these strategies can give way to success in the long term
Examining the styles and strategies of our learners very important in understanding their certain behaviors and helping them become aware of themselves as learners
Various taxonomies of learning styles and language learning strategies perceptual learning styles
Oxford’s taxonomy of language learning strategies

5. The Study
Aim
Investigating the relationship between perceptual learning styles and language learning strategies of tertiary level Turkish EFL students by applying a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative design
1. Is there any relationship between language learning strategy use and perceptual learning styles of tertiary level Turkish EFL students ?
2. How do high proficiency level and low proficiency level learners differ in their use of language learning strategies and perceptual learning styles ?

6. Methodology Participants
80 second year tertiary level university students
19-21 years old
Took similar courses like reading, writing, and speaking
Instruments
Background questionnaire to control some variables gender, purpose for learning the language and possible visits to countries where English is spoken as the native language

7. Methodology Quantitative Part
Two instruments Strategy Inventory for Language Learning and Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Questionnaire
A TOEFL Test to determine high and low proficiency level learners
SILL developed by Oxford (1990)
50 question version for EFL learners
Six sub-scales cognitive, metacognitive, compensation, memory, social and affective strategies.

8. Methodology
PLSPQ developed by Reid (1987) to identify the preferred perceptual learning styles
Six subscales auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic, individual and group style
Qualitative Part
Retrospective Interviews to have a better understanding about their preferred learning styles and language learning strategy use
Five high proficiency level and five low proficiency level learners

9. Methodology Data Analysis Quantitative Data
Descriptive statistics SILL and PLSPQ
Total scores for each of the subscales mean scores and standard deviations were also calculated to show the general learning style preferences and language learning strategy uses
Relationship between the perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategy use Pearson product moment correlation coefficient

10. Methodology Qualitative Data
Interviews audio-taped and then transcribed used to support the data gathered through the questionnaires
Analyzed by two separate raters and inter-rater reliability was measured
Results
Descriptive Statistics Table 1

11. Results
Compensation Strategies ease their learning and overcome many difficulties they face
Memory strategies applying images, sounds, and reviewing
Group style students preferred to learn best when they work with others
Kinesthetic style preference to learn by getting someone’s body into action and moving around

12. Results Correlation Analysis
Both sub-scales and total scores were correlated Table 2
General findings there is no relationship between the language learning strategies and perceptual learning styles of the participants
There are significant correlations between some of the strategies and styles
There is relationship between cognitive strategies and individual styles compensation strategies and individual style memory strategies and visual style affective strategies and visual style

13. Results
When they were compensating a difficulty or practicing, receiving and sending messages they prefer to work alone
When they were reviewing, applying images, sounds and when they try to lower their anxiety they prefer to learn visually
In terms of tertiary level Turkish EFL students no association exists between their strategy use and learning style preferences

14. Results Qualitative Findings
The basic difference between high proficiency and low proficiency learners was the awareness of strategies and styles
High proficiency learners stated that they know the importance of using the appropriate strategies for being successful
“I think strategies are very important. I understood it this year. Especially for reading, if you do not use appropriate strategies you can not become an efficient reader. That’s why; I try to learn new and effective strategies that would help me to overcome difficulties ”

15. Results
Low proficiency learners seem not to be aware of strategies they acknowledged that they do not use them to achieve success
“I don’t think I use many strategies. O.K I learned some of them in different lessons...but they are like something to memorize. If you ask me their names I can tell, but the problem is...I can’t use them. I know some friends use effective strategies, but I think I have a long way to go to be successful”

16. Results Transfer of different strategies into various contexts
High proficiency learners stated that they were able to transfer a good strategy into another area, but low proficiency learners were not able transfer any strategies into other contexts
Learning styles there are also differences between high and low proficiency level students High proficiency learners know how they learn best, are aware of their learning styles and design their studies accordingly

17. Results
Low proficiency group were not aware of their styles and even when some of them were aware they ignore their learning styles when they study language
Students’ ideas on the relationship between learning styles and success High proficiency learners asserted a direct relationship between styles and success as they think one’s knowing his/her own styles determine how s/he would study to achieve success

18. Results
Low proficiency level students did not see any relationship between learning styles and success They acknowledged that they know the meaning of ‘style’, but they never organized themselves accordingly
Relationship between language learning strategies and styles most of the students stated that they did not think about something like that even the high proficient students
Supports the quantitative findings

19. Conclusion
Being aware of styles and strategies, and using them appropriately may bring success while learning a foreign language
Turkish students no correlation between the overall strategy use and style preferences
Good language learners use strategies more frequently
High proficient learners were aware of the importance of using strategies and transferring them into other contexts.

20. Conclusion
Learning styles are emphasized for achieving success especially by the high proficient students showed the way to study in a more organized and conscious way
Quality of strategy use other than the quantity high proficient learners acknowledged the importance of using strategies appropriate for specific actions in their studies
Although students may be aware of the strategies and styles, they may not know how to use them effectively

21. THANK YOU 

22. Descriptive Statistics

23. Correlation Analysis