c h
e f
f e
Kinesthetic -,899
3,713 ,971
-10,23 8,43
Auditory Visual
,752 4,285
,985 -10,02
11,52 Kinesthetic
-,146 3,627
,999 -9,26
8,97
Kinesthetic Visual
,899 3,713
,971 -8,43
10,23 Auditory
,146 3,627
,999 -8,97
9,26
The Post-Hoc multiple comparisons showed that there is no significant difference among students’ reading comprehension based on their learning styles
because the data clearly reports that all the result of significance value are higher than 0.05. Meanwhile, to have the significant difference, the sig, value or
significance value should lower than 0.05. Moreover, the result on the Post-hoc multiple comparisons test told that between visual and auditory is 0.985, visual
and kinesthetic is 0.971 and auditory and kinesthetic is 0.999. It can be conclude there is no significant difference
on students’ reading comprehension based on their visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles.
D. Data Interpretation or Discussion
According to the data description, 8
th
term students of English education department in UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta have twenty five percent of
students which are visual learners. In simple, the visual learners are students who learning through seeing, reading, watching people, videotapes and television.
Visual learners typically, they seem to be able to read the textbook, journal, article, or newspaper on their own to increase their understanding. Then, twenty
three percent of students are auditory learners, they rely on hearing for comprehending and remembering. They put hearing as the primary device to
absorb information or knowledge. Moreover, fifty two percent of students are kinesthetic learners, this learners’ type are seem to be absorbing information
through physical, likely they use their body or sense of touch to learn and
understand the world around them. Kinesthetic learners prefer to think out issues, idea and problems while the teacher giving exercises. The elaborated percentage
shows that kinesthetic learners are the highest percentage of learning styles among English Education students. Hence, it can be said that the 8
th
term of English education department in UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta are dominated by
kinesthetic learners. Additionally, the result of assumption tests, normality and homogeneity test
in the data analysis showed that the data are distributed normally and the variances of data are homogenous. After that, ANOVA was conducted to know
result of hypothesis. Then, the result showed F-value F ˳ is lower than F-table
F
t
, F ˳ F table. Further, the p value is greater than alpha ɑ , p value
0.05. As a result that H ˳ is accepted if F-value F˳
F-table F
t
and probability significant sig. value 0.05. Therefore, it can be stated that there is
no sign ificant difference on students’ reading comprehension based on their
learning styles. For the detail data, it can be seen on the Post-Hoc test about the difference significant value among learning styles.
As a result, Post-Hoc test data revealed that there is no groups are varied. All the significant value of comparisons is higher than the alpha 0.05. The detail is
when visual group is compared by auditory, the result is 0.985, secondly, visual group is compared by kinesthetic group is 0.971 and the last, auditory group is
compared by kinesthetic group is 0.999. Hence, it can be clearly said that there is no significant difference on students’ reading comprehension based on their
visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles. Then, findings of the study are different from some elaborated theories
according to the experts which said that learning styles correlate to students’
reading comprehension. Schuman ’s finding on his research showed that learning
styles have a definite impact in acquisition of skills associated with learning to
read.
3
She noted that accommodating learning styles is an important consideration in providing equal opportunities for the success of all students. Further, Shaver
revealed based on his research that there is significant correlation between learning styles and reading achievement.
4
Then, Tanta also in line with both of experts, her research reveals that learning styles has positive correlation with
students’ achievement.
5
Therefore, learning styles was considered as a significant factor affected reading comprehension score dominantly.
In addition, according to Judy William, he said that the relationship between learning styles and reading comprehension was exists. This research discussed
about for kinds of learning styles, Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic and Tactile He collected the data by Kaleidoscope profile and the Scholastic Reading Inventory
SRI and analyzed the data by using Chi Square, ANOVA and Post Hoc Test. His dissertation result reveals that there is significant different among seventh grade
from two suburban Junior High School st udents’ comprehension score and
learning styles. Hence, learning style includes as a factor affected reading comprehension.
6
In contrast, the data result or finding of this study reveals differently with the theories from some experts above, the result reported that there is insignificant
difference among students’ reading comprehension score based on learning styles;
visual auditory and kinesthetic. It means that a contradiction occurred among the elaborated theories. The reading comprehension score is not affected dominantly
by the learning styles.
3
Schuman, in Ibrahim Abdu Saadi, An Examination of the Learning styles of Saudi Preparatory School Students who are High or Low in Reading Achievement, Thesis of Victoria
University, 2012, p. 4, published.
4
Shaver, in Ibrahim Abdu Saadi, An Examination of the Learning styles of Saudi Preparatory School Students who are High or Low in Reading Achievement, Thesis of Victoria
University, 2012, p. 2, pubished.
5
Tanta, The Im pact of Learning Style towards Students’ Study Achievement on the
Subject of General Biology, of Biology Education Program, Cenderawasih University. Kreatif Jurnal Kependidikan Dasar, vol. 1 no. 1, 2010, p. 20.
6
Judy Williams, Reading Comprehension, Learning Style and Seventh Grade Students, Dissertation of Liberty University, 2010, p. 102, published.
