SELF-SELECTED READING ACTIVITIES BY LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES:PROMOTING READING TASK ENGAGEMENT IN TERTIARY CLASSROOM.

SELF-SELECTED READING ACTIVITIES BY LEARNING

STYLE PREFERENCES:PROMOTING READING TASK

ENGAGEMENT IN TERTIARY CLASSROOM

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for Master Degree

Florita Diana Sari

0808318

ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

===========================================================

Self-Selected Reading Activities by Learning Style

Preferences:

Promoting Reading Task Engagement in Tertiary Classroom

by

Florita Diana Sari

S.S Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2001

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master Degree at Graduate School of English Education

© Florita Diana Sari 2012 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the authority of InstitutTeknologi Telkom for their support throughout the years of my master education. Also to Ir.Christanto Tri Wibisono, M.M., Ir.BudiSoelistiyo, M.T,.and the Telkom Polytechnics staff for their assistance.

I owe a great debt of gratitude and appreciation to Prof. DidiSuherdi, Dr. WachyuSundayana, and Emi Emilia, Ph.D whose intellectual guidance, advice and help have been invaluable to me.

My sincere gratitude and appreciation extend to Dian Yuliana for her priceless companionship through the thesis making; to ImaKusmayanti for allowing some precious time for me to push through the finish line; to EndangBudiasih for the ‘food for thought’ along the way, and to Dianna Fuller for the encouragement and kindness that extend beyond continental borders.

Heartfelt thanks are due to Anwar, Bagus, and Choisy, the little people whose existence has brought color to my life; and to my husband, the ‘other side of my shoes’ with whom I become more ready and steady in walking through the journey to self-improvement.

DEDICATION

To Bapak&IbuDiono

and Diana Dewi

theDearest people with whom I share my name and to whom I share my fame

ABSTRACT

A number of studies suggest that allowing students to self-select reading material helps students become more willingreaders and increase the likelihood for deeper reading. However, it is not common for some English reading classes to allow students choosing reading materials, as they are usually prescribed by teacher or textbook (Zulfikar, 2009; Yembise, 2010). Recognizing choice as a well-known method for enhancing motivation, the current study employed students’ choice to self-select reading activities as a techique to promotereading task engagement.

This study aimed at investigating(i) students’ self-selection of reading activities with regard to their learning style, and (ii) their engagement in doing the selected reading activities. Three reading materials from a compulsory textbook were differentiated into 12 reading activities, each responding to different combinations of learning style previously identified using ILS (Index of Learning Style). A sample of 54 students from one polytecnics school in Bandung self-selected the reading activities that they thought most pertinent to them. This study looked for their affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagements. Compatibility and incompatibility of students self-selection relative to their identified learning style was also examined to see any difference in reading task engagement.

The ILS survey showed a majority of active (80.2%), sensor (83.1%), visual (81.7%), and sequential learners (81.7%). From self-reports, this evaluative case-study revealed six themes related to affective-behavioral-cognitive engagement, i.e. interest, imagination, challenge, relatedness, perceived compatibility, and external regulation. All responses combined, cognitive engagement (40.3%), affective engagement (39.7%), and behavioral engagement (14.0%) were recognized, with 6% of disaffection, orthe opposite of engagement. Participants with weak compatible self-selection (18.5%) were more likely engaged in the cognitive areas with less or no affective engagement. On the other hand, participants who made strong compatible self-selection (31.5%) were engaged more on the affective and behavioral aspects but at greater risk of disaffection due to unmet expectation on the reading activities they had chosen. The remaining 50% of participants, who made moderately compatible self-selection, were found to be engaged more on the cognitive area especially when they made intentional self-selection to activities that mismatched, either partially or fully, with their learning style. Readiness or internal regulation to self-select reading activities that were different from their usual expectation was one of the key factors in engaging students regardless of their learning style.

TABLE OF CONTENT

APPROVAL SHEET ... Error! Bookmark not defined. DECLARATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. DEDICATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

TABLE OF CONTENT ... 1

LIST OF FIGURES ... 3

LIST OF TABLES ... 4

LIST OF TERMS ... 5 CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1. Background of the Study... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2. Research Purpose ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3. Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4. Significance of Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5. Organization of the Thesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1. Differentiated Instruction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2. Grouping and Self-selection... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3. Learning Style ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4. Learning Task Engagement ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.5. EFL-Reading Instruction in Indonesian Tertiary EducationError! Bookmark not defined. Summary of Literature Review ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER 3 : METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1. Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2. Researcher and the Areas of Bias ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. Setting ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4. Participants ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5. Instruments ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.1. Index of Learning Style Questionnaire ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2. LS-Differentiated Reading Activities ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.3. Self-selection Logs ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.4. Observation Sheet ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.5. Comprehension Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.6. Procedure ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.1. Procedure for Collecting Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.2. Procedure for Analyzing Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Summary of Methodology ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 4 : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1. Compatibility of Learning Style and Self-Selected Reading ActivitiesError! Bookmark not defined.

4.2. Learning Style Compatibility and Reading Activity Engagement ThemeError! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.1. Interest ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2. Imagination ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.3. Challenge ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.4. Relatedness ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.5. Perceived compatibility ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.6. External Regulation... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.7. Disaffection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3. Overall Engagement in DRAs ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1. Conclusions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2. Limitation of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.3. Ideas for Future Research ... Error! Bookmark not defined. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix A: Index of Learning Style Questionnaire (ILS)Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix B: Indonesian Translated Version of ILS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix C: Texts & Readability Statistics ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix D: Psychologist Consultation Notes ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix E: Self-selection Log ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix F: Observation Sheet ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix G: Multiple-choice Reliability Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix H: Comprehension Test & Rubric ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix I: Open-ended Sample Comprehension Test ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix J: Participant Consent ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Intersectional Area of the Present Study ...5

Figure 2.3 Overview of Felder-Soloman’s Index of Learning Style ...18

Figure 2.4 Overview of Myer-Brig's Type Indicator ...18

Figure 2.5.Coffield et al.'s Family of LS (2004) ...21

Figure 2.6. Kolb's and Honey-Mumford’s LS Model (from Yao, 2012) ...21

Figure 2.7 Framework of Engagement Process of Reading in Classroom Context ...27

Figure 2.8 Annotated Sample of Pre-Reading Activity for Upper Secondary Students Grade XI ...29

Figure 2.9 Annotated Sample of Reading Material for Upper Secondary Students Grade XI ………... ...30

Figure 2.10 Annotated Sample of Pre-Reading Activity for First Year Tertiary Student ...…31

Figure 2.11 Annotated Sample of Reading Material for First Year Tertiary Student ...32

Figure 3.1. Sample of ILS Result ………...40

Figure 3.2. Matrix of LS Combination for Differentiating Reading Activities ………... ...41

Figure 3.3. Theme-Identification Techniques ...53

Figure 4.1 Students’ ILS Result & Their Strength of Preference ………… ...55

Figure 4.2. Relatedness in Self Determination Continuum ...74

Figure 4.3. Continuum of Autonomy in Engagement ...77

Figure 4.4 Mood toward the Self-Selected Groups ...78

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Comparison of Personalized, Differentiated, and Individualized

Instruction ……….………… 8

Table 2.2 Grouping Matrix ………...…………. 11

Table 3.1.Summary of Sample ………..37

Table 3.2. Reading Activities Differentiated by Felder-Soloman’s ILSError! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3.3 Pearson correlation matrix and the corrected inter-rater reliability . Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4.1. LS-Compatibility Scoring ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.2 LS-Compatibility Frequency ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.3 Degree of LS Compatibility ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.4 Matrix for Theme Identification ...60 Table 4.5. Sample of Theme Identification TabulationError! Bookmark not defined. Table 4.6. Emergent Themes ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TERMS

ACT -RFF : Active – Reflective DI : Differentiated Instruction

DRA : Differentiated Reading Instruction ESP : English for Specific Purposes GLO-SEQ : Global – Sequential

ILS : Index of Learning Style

LS : Learning Style

SEN -INT : Sensing – Intuitive VIS - VERB : Visual – Verbal

CHAPTER 1

: INTRODUCTION

Chapter I of this thesis introduces the background, purpose, and questions of the study. After presenting the significance of the study, the chapter closes with overall organization of the thesis.

1.1. Background of the Study

A number of studies suggest that allowing students to self-select reading material increases reading motivation and leads to greater skills in reading (Bruckmann, 2009). The choice of text not only helps students become more willing readers (Lehman, 2011) but also increase the likelihood for deeper reading and greater use of cognitive strategies (Guthrie, et al., 2004), as well as improve scores on standardized reading tests (Offenberg, 2009).

However, it is not common for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading classes in Indonesia’s colleges to allow students choose reading material. Particularly in teacher-centered (Zulfikar, 2009) or textbook-centered (Yembise, 2010) classrooms, instructors or course books dictate to students what to read during instructional time. This can reduce the likelihood of engaged reading, drops the quality of learning, and diminishes the development of English proficiency itself (Lawrence, 2011 citing Ur 1996, Lee1997, & McGrath 2002). Recognizing choice as “a widely acknowledged method for enhancing

motivation” (Marinak & Gambrell, 2010:71), the current study aims at making use

of students’ choice and self-selection to increase reading engagement in EFL college classrooms.

At least three challenges arise from this aim. First, since the content of EFL college reading is often institutionally prescribed, applying choice and self-selection to such a reading material demands an application of certain strategy. This strategy is expected to counter boredom and disinterest toward the prescribed reading materials. Second, the product of reading instruction itself, i.e. the way students can demonstrate whether they have learned the key concepts and skills, usually takes the form of standardized tests (Januleviciene & Kavaliauskiene, 2002). This also leaves fewer options for students to self-select ways to perform their learning result. Last, self-selection can be of little benefit if it is not related in someway to students themselves. Assor, Kaplan & Roth put the idea precisely, stating that “Choice is good, but relevance is excellent” (2002:1). Hence it is necessary to consider the relevant criteria used for offering self-selection that most

pertinently can promote student’s engagement to reading activities.

A growing body of literature on a teaching philosophy called Differentiated Instruction (henceforth is DI) lends insights for the current study. DI enables teachers to strategically plan the instructional content, process and

product to address learners’ needs, based on their profile, interest, and readiness (Tomlinson 2001). Self-selection can be conveniently harnessed into the DI philosophy, owing to the concept of flexible grouping that allows students to group and regroup for different learning purposes. Engagement is also an important concept in the DI philosophy, as understanding and engagement are two basic premises of DI. In reading, it means that for students to understand the reading materials, they have to be engaged (Miller, 2007).

At this point, self-selection of activities for engaged reading can be made available by adjusting instructional process – rather than adjusting the content or product – to one of the three aspects of DI, i.e. learner’s profile, interest and readiness level. Since the prescribed texts for college reading are generally of one specific interest (i.e. the content area), students’ interests and readiness levels are not easily represented in the self-selection. Therefore, it is more feasible to

differentiate reading instruction toward the learners’ profile. Defined by Tomlinson (1999), learning profile is the way student learns best, shaped by elements such as learning style, intelligence preference, culture, and gender. Since the literature and instruments on Learning Style (henceforth is LS) have been growing rapidly, this study employs student’s LS as the key aspect for differentiating EFL instruction to promote reading engagement.

1.2. Research Purpose

The present study delineates its purposes as follows:

a) identifying students’ learning styles and their compatibility to the reading activities that they self-select

b) investigating students’ engagement to the self-selected reading activities

1.3. Research Questions

The present study is conducted to answer two research questions as follows:

1. Do students self-select reading activities that are compatible with their identified learning style?

2. How do compatible/incompatible self-selections play role in students’ engagement while doing differentiated reading activities?

1.4. Significance of Study

The current study expects to contribute to three areas: the educational practice, the professional development of college instructors and the theory. To educational practice, this study advocates ownership in students reading activities to enhance engagement. Toward professional development, this study expects to empower EFL college instructors to use what they know about their students, and make informed decisions about some strategies to increase the quality of their profession. To the theory, the study enriches literature especially in differentiated instruction, learning style, and reading task engagement.

1.5. Organization of the Thesis

This thesis comprises five chapters. The introduction to the study is made by Chapter 1, consisting of background, purpose, question, and significance of the study. The ensuing Chapter 2 contains review of literature in five areas, namely the DI, self-selected grouping, LS, engagement, and EFL reading instruction in Indonesian tertiary education. Definition of key terms is also included at the end of the chapter. Chapter 3 describes the methodological aspects of the study, including the research design, the researcher and area of bias, the setting, participant, instruments, and procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Chapter 4 presents and interprets the data. Finally, conclusions, limitations of the study and ideas for future research are presented in the Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter begins its description on the methodology by addressing the research design and researcher‟s area of bias. Setting, participants, and instruments are subsequently discussed. After describing procedure of data collection and analysis, this chapter concludes with a summary of methodology.

3.1. Research Design

This study employed an evaluative case-study design (Yin 2009:19). This design was selected due to its suitability to “describe an intervention and the real-life context in which it occurred” (ibid:20). Evaluative case study is also useful to explain the presumed causal links in the real-life interventions between variables (e.g., treatment and intervention outcomes) which are “too complex for survey or

experimental strategies” (ibid:19).

Correspondingly, the treatment or intervention in this study was three

sessions of differentiated reading activities (DRA), each was devised by adapting

to different combinations of learning style based on the Index of Learning Style

model (ILS). The efficacy of DRA as a classroom practice to promote reading

task engagement was evaluated in its real-life context within three EFL reading

classrooms of an engineering college. Self-selection logs, observation sheet, and

comprehension test were the instruments used to investigate students’ reading task engagement, and these instruments were trialed to enhance its validity. Students’ reading task engagement were assessed through students’ affective, behavioral,

and cognitive responses (A-B-C responses) during DRA interventions. The

researcher also serves as an instrument to analyze the A-B-C responses, and

validity of findings were sought by applying several measures including

triangulating data, search for discrepant evidence, and quasi-statistics.

3.2. Researcher and the Areas of Bias

The researcher is a lecturer at Institut Teknologi Telkom, Bandung, where she has been teaching English for engineering students for ten years. The researcher is familiar with instructional demand of ESP in engineering area, and the challenges faced by her students to become skilled at reading engineering texts. Enthusiastic about facilitating students to be more engaged in reading, the researcher conducted an evaluative case-study design in one engineering college in Bandung. The researcher selected an institution other than her current affiliation as an attempt to maintain her objectivity in conducting the study.

The researcher assumed roles as activity developer, instructor, observer, and rater, through which the she brought several areas of bias to this study. First and perhaps most importantly, the researcher brings her own learning style i.e. REF-1, INT-3, VIS-1, GLO-5 (mildly reflective-intuitive-visual, and moderately global). To some degree, this influenced her way of developing activities, delivering instruction, observing classroom situation, and assessing the reading activities. This bias was systematically reduced particularly on the development and assessment parts of this study, by inviting two external points of views. First was from educational psychologist, concerning the design of reading activity so that

they could be equally meaningful and fairly attractive to all learners. Second was from other raters, concerning the assessment of the comprehension test.

The second bias is that the researcher is not the leading instructor in the classes that could have possibly affected her interaction with the participants, and might have influenced the way students perceive her and her instruction in class. Students might respond more enthusiastically than their usual responses, or conversely give less importance to the activities given by the researcher since the activities were not bearing points to their final assessment. This bias had been minimized by appearing in few sessions prior to intervention, allowing students to interact more with the researcher. Researcher also reminded herself to stay alert to her own subjectivity and constantly examine herself for biases throughout the study by referring to multiple sources of data to counteract this limitation.

In retrospect, there were two major measures that could not be implemented in this research. First was inviting other researcher to the classroom and second was conducting post-research interview to confirm the finding from self-report and observation. To compensate the first deficiency, this study managed to videotape reading activities in order to maintain objectivity. Regarding the second, the researcher employed multiple self-reports to provide confirmation toward findings.

3.3. Setting

The study took place in one polytechnics in Bandung, where grammar and reading skills were taught to students in their second semester. The polytechnics offers three vocational programs at D-3 level – a level in Indonesian education system

below bachelor degree, typically accomplished in three years. The vocational programs were related to information and communication technology: computer engineering (CE), computerized accounting (CA), and information system (IS).

Selection of site was made by reflecting on two factors. To begin with, one instrument namely ILS was originally designed to capture the LS of engineering students (Felder & Silverman, Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, 1998). Secondly, the polytechnics has given greater attention to English proficiency in its curriculum, indicated at least by the inclusion of English courses in four consecutive semesters, and the requirement of taking English proficiency test prior to graduation. Selecting an institution that has evident enthusiasm toward improving English skills has facilitated the study with the institution‟s confidence on the research, and the wider opportunity of disseminating relevant benefits to the institution upon the completion of study.

3.4. Participants

Three participating classes were purposively selected from 29 EFL reading classes during even semester 2010, one from each major. Few students were ruled out by the institution due to low attendance, thus the three participating class contained 96 active students in three classes: 29 students of CE-05, 32 students of IS-04, and 35 students of CA-02. In total they were 53 males and 43 females, aged between 18-20 years of age. After deleting students with missing values, the final sample contained 54 students, yielding the response rate as much as 56.3 percent.

Table 0.1. Summary of Sample Class Registered

students

Active students

Taking ILS

Participating in 3x DRAs

Taking Reading test

Valid Responses (no missing values)

CE-05 38 29 25 28 29 25

IS-04 40 32 23 26 28 18

CA-02 37 35 23 32 26 11

Total 105 96 71 86 83 54

Response rate 74% 89.6% 86.5% 56.3%

3.5. Instruments

Five instruments were employed in this study to answer two research questions. With regard to the first question, i.e. whether students‟ self-selections to the LS-differentiated reading activities compatible with their LS, two instruments were used: (i) Index of Learning Style Questionnaire and (ii) Differentiated Reading Activities. Meanwhile, to investigate the second research question, i.e. how compatible/incompatible self-selections of reading activities help students engage to reading task, there other instruments were used. They were (iii) Self-selection Logs, (iv) Observation Sheet and (v) Comprehension test. Each was intended to investigate students‟ affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses, respectively.

3.5.1. Index of Learning Style Questionnaire

To portray students‟ learning style (LS) and correspondingly answer the first research question, Index of Learning Style questionnaire (ILS) was used (Appendix A). Felder & Soloman constructed ILS in 1991 from a learning model that was previously developed by Felder & Silverman in 1987. Analysis of psychometric properties of the ILS, including the test-retest reliability, factor structure, internal reliability, total item correlation, inter-scale correlation, and construct validity were discussed in the Felder & Soloman‟s study (2001) based

on the scores for 557 valid questionnaires of engineering students. In summary, the author supports conclusions found in the literature and points to the ILS as a suitable psychometric tool for evaluating LSs of engineering students.

There are at least three reasons for supporting the use of ILS in this study. First, as stated above, ILS was developed from a learning model of engineering students thus justifying its administration on the participants in this study. Second, scholars have tested the validity of this instrument including Van Zwanenberg et al. (2000), Livesay et al. (2002), Zywno (2003), Felder & Spurlin (2005) and Litzinger et al. (2005). One study by Livesay et al. reports the alpha to be in the range of 0.54 to 0.72 and they found relatively high test-retest reliability in repeated measurements over time (2002). Third, unlike many of other LS questionnaires, ILS is available on the internet for non-business use, and returns immediate result at no cost. Since its launch on the World Wide Web in 1996, ILS gets nearly a million hits per year and has been translated into several languages (Felder, 2001).

To help the participants do ILS survey on the Internet, the researcher provided hard copy of the Indonesian translation (Appendix B). This translated version of ILS was put on trial to 22 language lab assistants in the researcher‟s institution, and the assistants found it useful in assisting them to understand the questions properly. It also increased their confidence in completing the survey.

In brief, ILS portrays learning style in four dimensions of continuum: information processing (active/reflective, abbreviated as ACT-REF), perception

(sensing/intuitive, or SEN-INT), modality input (visual/verbal, or VIS-VRB), and progress toward understanding (sequential/global, or SEQ-GLO). The ILS scales are bipolar, 44 forced-choice item that yields answer either (a) or (b). Since there are 11 numbers of items each on the four scales, scored as +1 and –1, the total score on a scale from –11 to +11 shows an emerging preference for the given dimension. Scores for each continuum are the complement of 11. Consequently, a person who gives 6 answers for reflective processing means she gives 5 answers for active processing. The difference is 1 favoring reflective processing, and thus reported in the ILS result as a cross above the REF scale as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 0.1. Sample of ILS Result

3.5.2. LS-Differentiated Reading Activities

The host institution provided a courseware for grammar-reading ESP course for their second-semester students. With regard to the compulsory reading materials presented on Unit 7, 8, and 12 of the courseware, the researcher developed four different reading activities for each unit. Each of these four activities represented

different combination of LS in 2x2 matrix, with the sensing-intuitive dimension as its main axis and three other dimensions modify it. The explanation below justify the use of sensing-intuition as the main axis, the making of twelve activities based on DI philosophy, and the validation of instrument. The corresponding model of LS-combination used in differentiating reading activities is depicted in Figure 3.2.

Sensing-intuition (SEN-INT) is used as the main axis because psychology experts and practitioners believe this dimension “represents the greatest

differences between people since it really influences one's worldview” (Tieger &

Barron-Tieger, 2000). It functions as “filtering system” (Quixote Consulting, 2010) and is said to be one of the keys to satisfaction at any kinds of occupation (Alvey, 2010). A study by Tieger & Barron-Tieger in the field of law vividly demonstrates the fundamental influence of this dimension, and the authors suggest that differences also may be recognized as early as on children (2000).

Figure 0.2. Matrix of LS Combination for Differentiating Reading Activities

While applying SEN-INT axis to the reading activities, the content area was maintained. The texts for reading instructions were used at their original level of difficulty and readibility (Appendix C). A total of twelve reading activities

were developed on the targeted Unit 7, 8, and 12. Differentiation was offered in the form of differentiated process (i.e. Unit 7, through different word games), differentiated product (i.e. Unit 8, through different drawings and stories), and differentiated content (i.e. Unit 12, through different sub-topics from one longer text). Graded ability was introduced – known in DI philosophy as „readiness‟. Unit 7 offered activities at word level, making use a set of the newly introduced vocabularies into active or reflective word games. Unit 8 presented activities at phrase level, applying bigger chunks of expression in visual or verbal products. In Unit 12, students were invited to interact with text at paragraph level, discussing sequential or global topics of a text. This way, the twelve reading activities has justifiably applied key principles of DI. Further, to minimize possibility that students choose only certain type of activity or certain corner of the class, these activities were offered in slightly different order. This counterbalances the effect of sensitization toward certain types of activity or certain position of groups.

To confirm the valid interpretation of styles into reading activities, researcher took two measures: conducting trials and consulting with educational psychologist. In three trials, the twelve activities were offered to classes in the research site that did not participate in the study. Students were asked to quickly self-select to one of four reading activities at a time. The activities and trial results were discussed with an educational psychologist in researcher‟s institution (Appendix D). Several adjustments added after trial and consultation include:

i. the use of identical color on each display of differentiated-activities matrix (see Figure 3.4.). Some students reported they self-selected to an activity because they like one color better than the other.

ii. the use of 60-second spirited music to encourage students physically self-select into the differentiated activities in just 1 minute. Self-selections may take up longer when students were undecided, and ended up accepting their friends‟ choice rather than following what interested them on the first place.

iii. the inclusion of more physical and manipulative activities for active learners (S+A and N+A). Due to the nature of reading itself as a reflective activity, and perhaps the researcher‟s mild propensity to reflective thinking, that the previous version of first differentiated reading activities (DRA-1) were more introspective than physical.

Table 0.2. Reading Activities Differentiated by Felder-Soloman’s ILS

Sensing (S) Intuitive (N) _Legend:

DRA-1, text unit 7 DRA-2, text unit 8 DRA-3, text unit 12

DRA = Differentiated Reading Activities

 Working with five senses; keen at concrete

information, e.g. numbers, how-tos, rules, definition; accept repetition.

 Looking for facts.

 Working with interpretations; keen at conceptual info, e.g. analogies, innovation, experiences, possibilities; accept complication.

 Looking for meaning. S+A : Guessing game with

vocabulary cards, by finding its definition from the text and explaining it as a hint to the group. Loud from using repetitive physical activity in prompting and guessing. Rewards with score.

N+A : Puzzle game by

choosing the right answer from the context of the text to solve the puzzle. Loud from discussing possibilities and manipulating puzzle. The puzzle rewards with a praise at the back of the puzzle.

 Prefer to learn by trying, do physical experiments, like to manipulate objects.

 Enjoy working in groups to figure out problems

Act

iv

e

(A)

S+R : Building sentences with as many vocab cards as possible, and adding words in the gap. Finding its definition from the text; and using more cards to obtain greater scores

N+R : Classifying words and give umbrella title that reflects a new idea. Find the meaning of the words from the text, and innovate new contexts for the words.

 Prefer thinking through before doing, like to evaluate options, and learn by analysis.

 Enjoy figuring out problem on their own

Ref

lect

iv

e

(R)

S+V : Completing blanks in a flowchart. Identifying a process/procedure from the text, and work with phrases and their related pictures.

N+V : Drawing a picture making use of cards of phrases/idioms. Create an analogy where the all the cards can fit.

 Prefer graphs, pictures, diagrams.

 Look for visual representation of information. Vis ua l ( V)

S+B : Finding misplaced explanation. Identifying a process/procedure from the text, and fixing the wrong phrases in the flowchart.

N+B : Creating story with cards of phrases/idioms. Experience a customizable story about a topic by fitting in all the cards into the story

 Prefer to hear or read information.

 Look for explanation of information. Ver ba l ( B )

S+Q : annotating a few paragraphs by asking, answering, and commenting

to friends‟ annotations.

Topic: parts of i-Pod (its accesorries).

The annotations go around in the group for receiving responses from all members

N+Q : annotating a a few paragraphs by asking,

answering, and commenting to

friends‟ annotations.

Topic: steps of i-Pod innovation.

The annotations go around in the group for receiving responses from all members

 Prefer to have information presented in an orderly manner

 Learn/do in small connected chunks and follow linear

connection.

 Put together the details in order to understand the big picture.

Sequ ent ia l ( Q )

S+G : annotating a a few paragraphs by asking, answering, and commenting

to friends‟ annotations.

Topic: all about current i-Pod The annotations go around in the group for receiving responses from all members

N+G : annotating a few paragraphs by asking,

answering, and commenting to

friends‟ annotations.

Topic:global i-Pod ahead. The annotations go around in the group for receiving responses from all members

 Prefer holistic approach.

 Learn/do in large jumps in order to get the big picture.

 See the big picture first then systematically can see the details

G lo ba l ( G )

3.5.3. Self-selection Logs

To record how students self-select to the differentiated reading activities (henceforth is DRA), the researcher devise a self-report introduced to participants as „Grouping Log‟. The term was intentionally chosen as it was more readily understood than term „LS-Differentiated Reading Activities Log‟. This instrument was designed to be simple but versatile, with its ability to capture multi-aspects of students responses including affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses.

The log took the form of semi open-ended self-report, and has four parts: personal data, the 1st DRA experience, the 2nd DRA experience, and the 3rd DRA experience (Appendix E). For personal data, students were asked to record their name, birth year, class, hobby they do on their own, and hobby they do with friends. These hobbies could give preview on how students were personally and collectively engaged. Throughout all DRA experiences, each log consistently

and „how-worth‟ of the chosen DRA. Related to the research questions, these four

information respectively elicited students‟ „self-selection‟, „behavioral response‟,

„affective response‟, and „cognitive response‟. They were translated into four queries: (i) what group they chose that week (A, B, C, or D); (ii) the most influential reason for choosing (the activity, friends, seating position, miscellany); (iii) their feeling after choosing the group (content, discontent, wanted to move to other group, neutral); and (iv) whether they think the chosen activity help them with the reading material (yes, no, neutral). Students were also asked to elicit brief explanation on their chosen answer. This log was trialed along with the DRA with sufficiently good result, thus no adjustment was added except converting the log from English into Bahasa. This log was considered a useful and authentic source of engagement responses, and is presented in concise form for participants‟ benefit.

3.5.4. Observation Sheet

The observation sheet was developed by the researcher to capture students‟ behavior as they interact with text, peers, and instructor (i.e. the researcher). This was another versatile instrument as affective and cognitive responses can be well captured while observing the behavioral responses. This instrument tapped

students‟ engagement in three phases of differentiated reading activities (DRA):

the beginning, middle, and end. Each of the phases was back-up by videotaped recording to enable extra observation and further reference after the class.

In the beginning, the researcher as participant observer documented 4-minute classroom behavior. The classroom situation was also videotaped in the

middle phase, in which 2-minute observation was dedicated to each group. Last, another 4-minute classroom behavior concluded the observation. The observed behavior were coded into A (affective), B (behavioral), C (cognitive), and D (disaffection). The observation sheet was trialed concurrently with the DRA and self-selection log. The trial results were satisfactory, and only layout modification – from 2-page sheet into just one page – was made to the sheet (Appendix F).

3.5.5. Comprehension Test

The development of comprehension test in this study was a challenging process. On the onset, 5 true-false and 5 multiple-choice questions on Unit 7-8 were trialed to a class of 35 students, yielding reliability as low as 0.32. Then revision was made and the second version of comprehension test, in the form of 10 multiple-choice items, was trialed to another class of 37 students. This resulted in greater alpha of 0.62 (Appendix G). This second version of comprehension test was administered to the three participating classes after completing all DRAs; with 5 open-ended questions on Unit 9 were added to the comprehension test. The results of multiple-choice tests were inconsistent between classes, yielding an alpha range of -0.39 in CE-05 class and 0.74 in CA-02 (Appendix G). As Litzinger et al. (2007) pointed out that reliability is a characteristic measurement of the specific sample, it was most likely that some samples were not under proper condition during the test thus resulting in greater measurement errors. Since deletion of few items could not significantly improve the negative reliability, the researcher decided to discard the multiple-choice comprehension test altogether, and considered the use of only the open-ended questions.

Correspondingly, it was imperative to confirm the reliability of the open-ended questions (Appendix H), due to the fact that the study did not afford a trial on them prior to administration. Therefore, after administering comprehension test in three classes, 30 random samples were put under three-rater‟s scrutiny. The researcher purposively selected two host instructors as co-raters: one instructor with indications as a sensing teacher, and one with characteristics as an intuitive teacher. The inter-rater reliability on the open-ended comprehension test were as high as 0.86 between the researcher and the presumably-intuitive instructor, and 0.79 between the researcher and the presumably-sensing instructor (Table 3.3). The ILS taken by the raters confirmed the presumed LS of both co-raters, proven by scales of ACT-5, SEN-7, VIS-9, GLO-3 for the sensing instructor, and REF-5, INT-3, VRB-3, GLO-1 for the intuitive instructor. With the researcher herself scaled at REF-1, INT-3, VIS-1, GLO-5, it was evident the three raters shared global-holistic point of view, yet more contrast on the sensing-intuition scale.

Since only the researcher who would rate the comprehension tests of the remaining 53 participants, then an adjustment on the inter-rater reliability coefficient must be made. Fan & Chen (2000) point out how Spearman Brown prophecy formula can be modified to yield the correct coefifcient when inter-rater reliability is obtained from only part of a sample. The Spearman Brown prophecy is written as: and modified into into

where n is 0.5 if part of the sample is rated by two raters, 0.33 if it was rated by 3 raters, and so on (Fan & Chen, 2000). The Pearson correlation matrix and the

corrected inter-rater reliability coefficient were calculated using statistical package in Excel, and the results are displayed in Table 3.3.

Table 0.3 Pearson correlation matrix and the corrected inter-rater reliability

Pearson

matrix Researcher Sensing

rater

Intuitive rater Researcher 1 0.79 0.86

Sensing rater 1 0.72

Intuitive rater 1

z transform Researcher Sensing rater

Intuitive rater Researcher 1.071 1.293

Sensing rater 0.908

Intuitive rater

It became evident that LS, most likely the sensing-intuition dimension (Tieger & Barron-Tieger, 2000), could have significant influence on the way raters take in information during assessment. Without considering this SEN-INT propensity of raters, this study could have overestimated or underestimated its inter-rater reliability. At Fleiss (1981) benchmark scale, the 0.65 agreement between researcher and her sensing counterpart fell under the category of „intermediate to good‟, while the 0.76 agreement between the researcher and her

intuitive counterpart was considered „excellent‟. However, under Landis & Koch

(1977) interpretation, both were deemed „substantial‟ (in Gwet, 2010).

The open-ended questions were introduced to students as „esai kreatif‟

(creative essay). The term here was meant in Indonesian sense in which esai normally refers to open-ended question, as opposed to multiple-choice, rather than in English sense of short written article. As the name suggested, students were invited to exercise creativity in answering the four questions. Students‟ LS can also be reflected their responses, as question #11 demanded recall of items that

Fisher Z transformation average 1.028 Pearson correlation for 3 raters 0.77

Corrected coefficient (Fan & Chen, 2000) Researcher & Sensing rater 0.65 Researcher & Intuitive rater 0.76

favored sensing learning, #12 asked for comprehending and analyzing implied relationship that favored intuition, and #13-14 of synthesis and application favored both sensing and intuition. Similar to the principles of main and auxiliary dimension, all the four questions gives the opportunities for students to respond in varied degrees of active-reflective thinking, visual-verbal mode, and sequential-global progression. Some of the samples responses are accessible in Appendix I.

3.6. Procedure

With regard to data collection and data interpretation in qualitative study, Maxwell (1998) proposes seven measures to enhance their validity. Included in the list are intensive and long-term involvement, rich data, respondent validation, search for discrepant evidence and negative cases, triangulation, quasi-statistics, and comparison (ibid: 243-245). With regard to this study, the last five measures were applicable i.e. respondent validation, search for discrepant evidence and negative cases, triangulation, quasi-statistics, and comparison. Enhancing validity from intensive and long-time involvement was not feasible since this study was conducted only in four weeks, each lasted in 40-50 minutes. Although the instruments used in this study were capable of capturing varied data, but the limited length of study and the absence of in-depth interview had limited the

researcher from obtaining what Maxwell defines as „rich data‟(ibid: 244).

Despite the limited length of study and the absence of interview, this study could enhance its validity through five measures. First, respondent validation was obtained through self-reports administered in three occasions, i.e. DRA-1, DRA-2,

and DRA-3. Second, discrepant evidence and negative cases were analyzed by searching for unusual responses. Third, using multiple sources of data from five instruments, triangulation was conducted. Fourth, since most data were coded into categories, statistics was also feasible. Maxwell justifies the use of quasi-statistics as this allows researcher to support her claim and to assess the amount of evidence in data (Maxwell, 1998; 2010). Last, although explicit comparison is usually made through control group, this study made comparisons between groups of compatible and incompatible self-selection, as well as between sub-group of students who responded positively and negatively to DRA.

3.6.1. Procedure for Collecting Data

The earliest phase of data collection began with 2-3 weeks of sit-in phase. This was conducted in three participating classes to familiarize with the students, the class situation, and the instructors of the class. Institutional consent was formally sought at this phase. The sit-in phase was important mainly because the study would take a half of the instructional time for administering the DRA interventions, thus the cooperation from the host instructor were sought, informally. Observing how students interacted with the text, peers, and instructors also gave preview on dynamics in each respected class. In this sit-in weeks the instruments were gradually trialed to other classes and revised accordingly.

A week before treatment, the researcher was introduced by the host instructor in classes as a visitor-instructor who would teach reading using LS games. In this occasion, ILS questionnaire was introduced. Handling them with

the translated version of ILS, the researcher showed students how to do the questionnaire on the internet and email the result to the researcher.

During the three weeks of DRA intervention, the host instructor taught grammar in the first half of instructional time and the second half was delegated to the researcher for reading instruction. The researcher stayed in the class during grammar instruction. When the reading instruction commenced, few host instructors stayed to observe the DRA; but in most cases, the class was fully entrusted to the researcher. The first 15 minutes of the reading instruction was typically stated with pre-reading activity to activate background knowledge on the topic. The next 25-30 minute was for students to self-select into groups and doing the reading activities. At this time the researcher observed the group behavior for engagement. Class was concluded with 5-minute wrap-up where students submitted their work and filled in the self-selection log.

Table 0.4. The Summary of Data Collection Stages and Instruments

# Instrument Description Reliability Types of Data 1

ILS questionnaire 44 forced-choice items 0.54 to 0.72

(Livesay et al.) Coded scale

2

LS-differentiated reading activities

4 forced-choice activity for reading, designed by combining LS dimensions

Trial, psychologist

consultation Sample works

Self-selection Log Self-report of 1 close-ended prompt &

3 semi open-ended prompts Trial, no revision

Coded Frequency Brief account

Observation sheet Observations on beginning-middle-end of activity for engagement response

Trial, layout revision

Coded Frequency Brief account 3

Comprehension test 4 ended questions, and 1 open-ended survey

0.65 to 0.76 (LS inter-rater)

Score Brief account 1 = Pre-intervention 2 = On-intervention 3 = Post-intervention

After DRA intervention weeks passed, the comprehension test was administered, again at the end of an English session. Students who had not sent the ILS were offered to do the survey using the Indonesian version from which the researcher later input the answer on the Internet and recorded the result. Participant consents (Appendix J) were also sought formally at this phase.

3.6.2. Procedure for Analyzing Data

Qualitative data analysis that involves four steps according to Ryan & Bernard (2003). Thay are (i) discovering themes and subthemes, (ii) sorting themes to a manageable few, by deciding which themes are important in this study, (iii) building hierarchies of themes, and (iv) linking themes into theoretical models. The first step was the most important since, as Ryan & Bernard put it, “without thematic categories, investigators have nothing to describe, nothing to compare, and nothing to explain.” (2003; 86). The authors point out that themes are discoverable in expression found in texts, images, or sounds. Classification is discovered when concepts are compared one against another and appear to pertain to a similar phenomenon. Therefore, the concepts are grouped together under a higher order, more abstract concept called a category (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; 61, in Ryan & Bernard, 2003).

Following qualitative analysis method from Ryan & Bernard (2003), the present study employed indigenous themes typologies with theory-related analysis. Indigenous themes are themes that characterize the experience of informants. This involves examining the setting and context, the perspectives of

activities, events, and relationships (ibid.; 93 citing Bogdan & Biklen (1982:156– 62).

Ryan & Bernard (2003) indicate that there is an inevitable trade-off between bringing a lot of prior theorizing to the theme-identification effort and going at it fresh. The authors see prior theorizing as potentially inhibiting the forming of fresh ideas and the making of surprising connections. Persistent avoidance of theory, on the other hand, brings the risk of not making the connection between data and important research questions (ibid; 94). Therefore, the current study sought the balance between the indigenous theme identification (i.e. students responses) and the theory (i.e. learning task engagement theories).

Regarding the techniques for analyzing themes, this study employed a technique suggested by Ryan & Bernard for identification of brief description of 1-2 sentences. These include repetition, similarities and differences, keywords in context and indigenous typologies (Figure 3.3). Cutting and sorting are mostly not necessary as the data from the students were normally short expressions.

Figure 0.3. Theme-Identification Techniques (Ryan & Bernard, 2003;102)

Summary of Methodology

This evaluative case study is explanatory in nature. Researcher, setting, participants and instruments have been discussed and appropriately justified. Five instruments were selected based on theoretical considerations and properly tested for its validity and reliability. Research validity was enhanced through five measures. Data gathered in this study were managed in Excel sheet database, and quasi-statistics was conducted using Anates V.5 and statistical package in Excel.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

This chapter summarizes the findings from the study, and offers several conclusions. It also describes limitations found in the study and recommends some areas awaiting further investigation.

5.1. Conclusions

The ILS survey showed a majority of active (80.2%), sensor (83.1%), visual (81.7%), and sequential (81.7%) learning style of 71 participants who took

ILS. Using Felder & Soloman’s (2001) indicator of preference intensity, the

number of moderate and strong learning style (LS) was highest for visual (56.3%), followed with active (40.8%), sensing (35.2%), and sequential (32.4%). These results correspond to the assumption initially made by Felder & Silverman (1998), that many or most engineering students are visual, sensing, active, and sequential. Similar results have been confirmed from LS studies in Denmark (Kolmos & Holgaard, 2004), Greek (Platsidou & Metallidou, 2009), China (Wang, 2007), Uni Arab Emirates and United States (Zualkernan, Allert, & Qadah, 2005), showing that engineering students are distinctly characterized by visual, sensing, and active LS, with less contrast in SEQ-GLO preference.

As much as 18.5% of participants showed weak LS compatibility with the selected groups of reading activities in three interventions. One student failed to self-select to any compatible group, and six students made only one compatible

self-selection from the available twelve groups. On the other end, some 31.5% of participants exhibited strong compatibility. Four students consistently self-selected reading activities groups which turned out to be compatible with their LS. In the middle, some 50% of the participants chose reading activities which showed moderate compatibility with their LS.

This evaluative case-study with simple statistics also revealed that the self-selection allowed students to engage in doing reading activities, regardless of the degree of their compatibility. Students with weak compatible self-selection (18.5%) were intensely engaged in the cognitive areas with less or no affective engagement. Meanwhile, students who made strong compatible self-selection (31.5%) were more engaged on the affective and behavioral aspects but with greater risk of disaffection due to unmet expectations from the reading activities they had chosen. Most students, including the 50% of students who made moderately compatible self-selection, were more engaged on the cognitive area especially when they made intentional self-selection of activities that mismatched, either partially or fully, with their LS. Readiness to self-select reading activities that were different from their usual expectation was a key factor in engaging students regardless of their LS.

Looking into the themes from self-reports, all criteria of affective, behavioral, and cognitive responses (A-B-C responses) were identified. From the total 486 entry responses extracted from 54 students, six major themes were: interest, imagination, challenge, relatedness, perceived compatibility, and external regulation. If responses were classified based on criteria of engagement, it turned

out that cognitive engagement was the mostly reported, i.e. 40.3% from all responses after doing differentiated reading activities. Affective engagement, comprising 39.7 % of responses, was only slightly less than cognitive engagement reported. Behavioral engagement was the third at 14.0%. Disaffection, as the opposite of engagement, was acknowledged in about 6% of total responses. Some of the above themes were also revealed in other studies. To name a few were Bruckmann’s study of self-selected reading among primary schoolers (2009) and similar study by Johnson & Blair’s (2003). Those themes

were also pertinent to Deci & Ryan’s seminal work on intrinsic motivation (1985),

Solarz’s study on affective-behavioral-cognitive changes on meditation (2004),

and Unver’s study on self efficacy in EFL classroom (2004).

In brief, it can be concluded that when choices are provided, students can feel challenged and generate their own readiness level to self-select their area of curiosity. However, satisfying curiosity is not always affordable in a one-size-fits-all class. Differentiated reading activities facilitates students’ curiosity, and thus nurtures their enthusiasm for learning. Differentiated instruction can promote student engagement, by offering self-selection. With regard to LS, self-selection allows students to improve their non-preferred styles, also called LS-stretching, when they are ready.

Three suggestions can be made from the results of this study. First is that to facilitate engagement in all students, self-selection to reading activities cannot be used solely or in isolation from other instructional strategies. The active role of teacher is necessary to support and fill the gap where self-selection cannot catch

the attention of some students, particularly those who are less self-regulated or not very much intrinsically motivated. Explicit teaching is necessary to support such students, most likely also sustained with more personalized instruction. Secondly, it is very important for teachers to allow students have some degree of freedom to self-select, either the type of activity, the materials, the pace, or the group member. The last, the findings from this study also suggest that matching learning style with teaching style, or matching learning style with the ‘style’ or nature of an activity is not necessarily imperative. Rather, readiness is a more essential enabler to allow students experience engagement in selecting and doing reading activities.

5.2. Limitation of the Study

This study has at least two limitations due to its design. First, this study was conducted in a limited time span, with only three opportunities to self-select. Therefore, some aspect of LS self-selection and compatibility have not yet been confirmed, especially regarding the auxiliary dimensions of active-reflective, visual-verbal, and global-sequential. Secondly, since the number of subjects recruited for this study was limited, with return rate of 56.4%, there was a possibility that students with incomplete responses could have elicit supportive or contradictive results from those obtained in this study.

5.3. Ideas for Future Research

There are at least two ideas for future research that can be derived from this study. First is the LS compatibility of raters that, as found in the inter-rater

benchmarking in this study, may influence the degree of inter-rater agreement. It is worth exploring and explaining whether inter-raters with different LS would process information differently and therefore result in different ratings on the students. Secondly, research can also be conducted with regard to types of reading materials, activities, or test items that potentially favor learners with a certain LS. Such a study could explore how reading material, activities, or assessments can be designed to stretch students’ LS and empower them for more flexible and meaningful learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AACPS. (2000 ). Differentiating Instruction for Advanced Learning in the Regular Classroom . Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Anne Arundel County Public School:

www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/instr/CURR/tag/gt/gt2.html

Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., & Spence, J. (2000, June). Why Should We Group Students Within-Class for Learning? Educational Research & Evaluation, 6(2), 158-179.

Agnesia, R. H. (2010). Features Affecting Task-Motivation In English For Academic Purposes Online Learning. Second Language Studies, 29(1), 1-34.

Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martín, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: a case study. User Modeling and

User-Adapted Interaction, 16, 377–401.

Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. (2012, Mar). Every Child, Every Day. Reading: The Core Skill ,

69(6), pp. 10-15.

Alvey, J. (2010, Dec 7). Key Lawyer Personality Trait: Are You a Sensing or Intuitive Type? Retrieved Dec 28, 2012, from http://leavinglaw.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/key-lawyer-personality-traits-are-you-a-myers-briggs-sensing-or-feeling-type/

Arkkelin, D., & Freeman, P. (2000). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Responses to Three Classroom Designs. Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association . Chicago : http://faculty.valpo.edu/darkkeli/papers/classmpa00/classmpa00.htm.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choise is Good, but Relevance is Excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and Suppressing Teacher Behaviors Predicting Students' Engagement in Schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261-278.

Bamford, J., & Day, R. (2004). Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language. Cambridge University Press.

Banner, G., & Rayner, S. (2000 , Summer ). Learning Language and Learning Style: Principles, Process and Practice . Language Learning Journal, 21 , 37-44.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Beadles II, N. A., & Lowery, C. M. (2007). Self-Selection Into Degree Programs: Differences In Preferred Learning Styles Between Online Students And Traditional Students. Academy

of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2), 103-113.

Bedford, L., Wiebe , M., & Tschida , M. (2007). Flexible Grouping in the Higher Education

Learning Environment. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from

Benjamin, A. (2003). Differentiated Instruction for Elementary School: A Guide for Elementary

School Teachers . Eye on Education.

Bird, R. (2006, November ). Personalisation: what does it really mean? Retrieved Oct 23, 2012, from Teaching Expertise: www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/personalisation-what-does-it-really-mean-1442

Blaz, D. (2006). Differentiated Instruction: A Guide for Foreign Language Teachers. Eye On Education.

BNSP. (2010). Standar Isi Pendidikan Tinggi. Jakarta: Badan Standarisasi Nasional Pendidikan .

Bomia, L. L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early

Childhood Education.

Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. (2008). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boucquey, T., Flores, K., Kramer, J., McPherson, L., & Pettit, M. (2007). 100 Games & Activities

for the Introductory Foreign Language Classroom. Eye on Education.

Brassell, D. (2012). Differentiating Instruction to Benefit Students’ Comprehension. Retrieved Jun 23, 2012, from Literacy Connections: Promoting Literacy and a Love of Reading: http://www.literacyconnections.com/differentiating-instruction-reading-comprehension

Bray, B., & McKlaskey, K. (2012, Jan 12). Personalization vs Differentiation vs Individualization

(Chart). Retrieved Sep 2012, 2012, from Rethinking Learning:

http://barbarabray.net/2012/01/22/personalization-vs-differentiation-vs-individualization-chart/

Bresó, E., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2010 ). Can a self-efficacy-based intervention decrease burnout, increase engagement, and enhance performance? A quasi-experimental study.

The International Journal of Higher Education Research.

Brewster, C., & Fage, J. (2001). Increasing Student Engagement and Motivation: From

Time-on-Task to Homework. Retrieved Apr 12, 2012, from Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory: http://www.nwrel.org/request/oct00/textonly.html

Bruckmann, C. M. (2009). What are The Effects of Allowing Self-Selection on Reading Motivation

and Skills? Retrieved Dec 20, 2012, from California State University, Sacramento:

http://edweb.csus.edu/edd/dissertations/cohort3/assets/bruckmann-colleen-effects-allowing-self-selection.pdf

Bulloch, K. (2004). How to Adapt Your Teaching Strategies to Student Needs. Retrieved Jun 22, 2009, from Readingrockets: http://www.readingrockets.org/article/370

Burrows, P. L. (2010). An Examination of The Relationship Among Affective, Cognitive,

Behavioral, and Academic Factors of Student Engagement of 9th Grade Students .

Buseco. (2009, Mar). Group Assessment Guidelines. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from Monash University Business & Economics: www.buseco.monash.edu.au/esg/agu/policies/group-assess-guidelines.pdf

Businessballs.com. (n.d.). David Kolb's learning styles model and experiential learning theory

(ELT). Retrieved Apr 2, 2010, from http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm

Byrnes, H. (1998). Reading in the beginning and intermediate college foreign language class. In G. S. Burkart, Modules for the professional preparation of teaching assistants in foreign

languages. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Cano-García, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and Thinking Styles: an analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4).

Carrizosa, K., & Sheppard, S. (2000). The Importance Of Learning Styles In Group Design Work.

30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Kansas City: IEEE Proceeding.

Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and urban society, 37(2), 139-150.

Caulfield, J. (2010, Jan). Applying Graduate Student Perceptions of Task Engagement to Enhance Learning Conditions. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning, 4(1).

Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., & Radcliffe, R. (2004). The effectiveness of strategic reading instruction for college developmental readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning,

35(1).

Chambers, G. (2007). Commentary: The Genesis of Student Engagement. LEARNing Landscapes,

1(1).

Chapman, A. (2009 ). Personality Theories, Types and Tests . Retrieved Oct 3, 2010, from www.businessball.com.

Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative Approaches to Assessing Student Engagement Rates. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13).

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The

influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of

Management Education, 30(4), 557-569.

Chen, Y.-u. H. (2007). Exploring the Assessment Aspect of Differentiated Instruction: College

EFL Learners' Perspectives on Tiered Performance Tasks. University of New Orleans.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in

Post-16 Education: A Systematic and Critical Review. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from

LSDA: http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf

Collins, C. C., & Paris, S. (2008). Comprehension Instruction Research-Based Best Practices. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Conaway, M. (1999, Oct 11). Repeated Measures Design. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/pub/Main/ClinStat/repmeas.PDF

Conttia, L. M. (2007). The Influence of Learner Motivation on Developing Autonomous Learning

in an English-for-Specific-Purposes Course. (Master Thesis). University of Hong Kong .

Corley, M. A. (2005, March). Differentiated Instruction Adjusting to the Needs of All Learners.

Focus on Basics: Connecting Research & Practice, 7(C).

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cribbie, R. A., & Jamieson, J. (2004). Decreases in Posttest Variance and The Measurement of Change. Methods of Psychological Research Online , 9(1), 37-55.

Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer.

DelliCarpini, M. (2006). Scaffolding and Differentiating Instruction in Mixed Ability ESL Classes Using a Round Robin Activity. The Internet TESL Journal, 7(3).

Dorney, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Driscoll, L. (2004). Reading Extra: A Resource Book of Multi-Level Skills Activities . Cambridge.

Dunn, R. (1984, Winter). Learning Style: State of the Science. Matching Teaching & Learning

Styles, 23(1), 10-19.

Dunn, R., & Honigsfeld, A. (2008). What if young children were grouped for reading with learning-style responsive approaches? Reading Improvement.

Dunn, R., Giannitti, M. C., Murray, J. B., Rossi, I., Geisert, G., & Quinn, P. (1990, August). Grouping Students for Instruction: Effects of Learning Style on Achievement and Attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4).

Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Ernst, H. R., & Ernst, T. L. (2005, Feb). The Promise and Pitfalls of Differentiated Instruction for Undergraduate Political Science Courses: Student and Instructor Impressions of an Unconventional Teaching Strategy. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(1), 39-59.

Esposito, D. (1973). Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Ability Grouping: Principal Findings and Implications For Evaluating And Designing More Effective Educational Environments .

Review of Educational Research, 43(2), 163-179.

Exley, B. (2004). Indonesian EFL Curricula: What content knowledge demands do they make of Australian teachers? In E. McWilliam, S. Danby, & J. Knight, Performing Educational

Musthafa, B. (1997). Content Area Reading: Principles and Strategies to Promote Independent Learning. TEFLIN Journal, III(1), 37-49.

Myers & Briggs Foundation. (2010). Type & Learning. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Myers & Briggs Foundation: http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/type-and-learning/

Neihart, M. (2007). The Socioaffective Impact of Acceleration and Ability Grouping: Recommendation for Best Practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 330-341.

Nilson, L. B. (2010 ). Teaching at its best : a research-based resource for college instructors - 3rd ed. . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching Reading Skills In A Foreign Language: New Edition. Heinemann. Offenberg, R. M. (2009). Using Self Selected Reading Materials to Improve the Achievement of

Children Poorly Served by Traditional Instruction: African American and Early Independent Readers. Retrieved Dec 21, 2012, from

http://www.americanreading.com/documents/report-offenberg_2009-03.pdf

Olsen, W. (2008). Learning styles as predictors of PBL satisfaction. Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM Conference.

Ostrom, T. M. (1969, Jan). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(1), 12–30. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview. In R. L. Oxford,

Learning Styles & Strategies. GALA.

Penger, S., Tekavčič, M., & Dimovski, V. (2008). Comparison, Validation And Implications Of Learning Style Theories In Higher Education In Slovenia: An Experiential And Theoretical Case. International Business & Economics Research Journal.

Pennington, M. (2010, Feb 15). 23 Myths of Differentiated Instruction. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from Pennington Publishing: http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/23-myths-of-differentiated-instruction/

Pigford, A. B. (1990). Instructional grouping: Purposes and consequences. Clearing House, 63(6). Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2009). Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Style

Inventories in a Greek Sample: Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Soloman’s

Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335.

Quixote Consulting. (2010). Sensing and Intuition - How You Take In Information. Retrieved Dec 28, 2012, from

http://www.quixoteconsulting.com/News_articles/Topics/sensing_intuition.html

Rance-Roney, J. A. (2010, Number 1). Reconceptualizing Interactional Groups. English Teaching Forum, pp. 20-26.

Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Prentice Hall Regents.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D., Little , C., Muller, L., & Kaniskan, R. (2011, Apr). The Effects of Differentiated Instruction and Enrichment Pedagogy on Reading Achievement in Five Elementary Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462-501. Robertson, E. J. (2005). The Effect of Learning Styles on Group Development In An Online

Learning Environment. Master Thesis. Watson School of Education - University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Robinson, J. P. (2008). Evidence of a Differential Effect of Ability Grouping on the Reading Achievement Growth of Language-Minority Hispanics. Language Educational Evaluation And Policy Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 2, 141-180.

Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research. Blackwell.

Rothblum, E., Solomon, L., & Murakami, J. (1986 ). Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioral Differences between High and Low Procrastinators. 33. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 387-394.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2004). Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Fifth Edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with Invisible Others: Perceptions of Online Presence and their Relationship to Cognitive and Affective Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 54-62.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85– 109.

Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2007). Is Field Dependence or Independence a Predictor of EFL Reading Performance? Tesl Canada Journal Revue Tesl Du Canada, 24(2), 82-108. Sanders, P. (2004). Researching Our Students for More Effective University Teaching. Electronic

Journal of Researching in Educational Psychology, 5-3 (1), 113-130.

Sayko, S., & Turner, S. (2005). Active Engagement Strategies for Whole Group Instruction. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from

http://plainfieldschools.org/district/reading_first/Sayko_Turner-Active_Engagement_Strategies_for_Whole_Group_Instruction.pdf

Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. (2011). The Engaged Learning Index: Implications for Faculty Development. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 22(1), 5-28.

Schroeder, C. C. (2009, Jun 27). New Students - New Learning Styles. Retrieved Oct 23, 2010, from http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/KierseyLearningStyles.html Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2006, August). Are heterogeneous or homogeneous groups

Schumm, J., Moody, S., & Vaughn, S. (2000, Sep-Oct). Grouping for reading instruction: does one size fit all? Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 33(5).

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Group Rewards Make Groupwork Work. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 89-91.

Stahl, S. A. (1999, Fall). Different strokes for different folks? American Educator. Strauss, P., U, A., & Young, S. (2007). Group selection in multicultural tertiary classes – a

meaningful assessment experience? 30th HERDSA Annual Conference. Adelaide. Strauss, P., U, A., & Young, S. (2011). I know the type of people I work well with: student anxiety

in multicultural group projects. Studies in Higher Education.

Suherdi, D. (2009). Mikroskop Pedagogik: Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar. Bandung: Celtics.

Suherdi, D. (2012). Rekonstruksi Pendidikan Bahasa. Bandung: Celtics.

Sundayana, W., Hartati, A., Soyanda, A., Kurnia, R., & Marsongko, E. (2008). English in Context: Developing Competencies in English . Bandung: Grafindo.

Sundayana, W., Hartati, A., Soyanda, A., Kurnia, R., Kurniawan, A., & Musthafa, B. (2007). Contextual Learning: Developing Competencies in English Use for SMA. Bandung: Grafindo Media Pratama.

Tate, M. W., & Brown, S. (1970, Mar). Note on the Cochran Q test. Journal of American Statistical Association, 65(329), 155-158.

Taylor, A. (2001). A Framework for Analyses with Numeric and Categorical Dependent Variables An Exercise in Using GLM Analyses with Categorical Dependent Variables. Retrieved Jan 1, 2013, from Psychology Department of McQuarry University:

http://psy.mq.edu.au/psystat/documents/GuideAnalysis.pdf

Theisen, T. (2002, Apr). Differentiated Instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Meeting the Diverse Needs of All Learners. Retrieved Jun 3, 2011, from LOTE CED

Communiqué: Issue 6 : https://www.sedl.org/loteced/communique/n06.html

Thomas, S. (2008). Cooperative Learning: Using Structured Groups to Facilitate Discussion in A Ninth Grade Classroom. Bethlehem Pennsylvania: Moravian College.

Tieger, P. D., & Barron-Tieger, B. (2000). Sensor or Intuitive: The Forest or the Trees? Retrieved Dec 26, 2012, from Awakening-Intuition:

http://www.awakening-intuition.com/SensorOrIntuitive.html

Tinajero, C., & Páramo, F. (1998). Field Dependence-Independence in Second-Language Acquisition: Some Forgotten Aspects. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 32-38. Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). What Makes Differentiated Instruction Successful? Retrieved Jun 22, 2009, from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/262

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Higher Education Academy. Valentino, C. (2000). Flexible Grouping. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from Eduplace:

http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/valentino.html

Van Zwanenberg, N., Wilkinson, L. J., & & Anderson, A. (2000). Felder and Silverman’s Index of

Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire: How do they

compare and do they predict academic performance?,Vol. 20 (3), p. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 365-381.

Vaughn, S. (2001, Jan). Instructional Grouping for Reading for Students with LD. Intervention in School & Clinic, 36(3).

Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional Grouping for Reading for Students with LD: Implications for Practice., January , Vol 36, No. 3. (pp.). Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 131-137.

Viola, S. R., Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Leo, T. (2003). Analysis of Felder-Silverman Index of Learning Styles by a Data-driven Statistical Approach . wit.tuwien.ac.at/analysis_of_felder_lsi . Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture.

Wang, L. (2007). Variation in learning styles in a group of Chinese English as a foreign language learners. International Education Journal, 8(2), 408-417.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 178-200.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., Klauda, S., McRae, A., et al. (2008). Role of Reading Engagement in Mediating Effects of Reading Comprehension Instruction on Reading Outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5).

Williams-Black, T. H., Bailey, J., & Lawson, P. D. (2010). Differentiated instruction: Are university reading professors implementing it? The Reading Matrix, 10(1), 45-54. Willoughby, J. (2000). Differentiating Instruction: Meeting Students Where They Are. New York:

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Wurr, A. J. (2003). Reading in a second language: a reading problem or a language problem? Journal of College Reading and Learning.

Xanthou, M., & Pavlou, P. (2008, Jan). Strategies of Accommodating Mixed Ability Classes in EFL Settings: Teachers’ Armour in an Ongoing Battle. Retrieved Mar 9, 2009, from www.hltmag.co.uk/jan08/mart04.doc

Yao, J. (2012, Oct 12). ATL Learning Contract Improve post-lecture learning using Video-based technologies . Retrieved Dec 12, 2012, from

http://jyao28.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/learning-contract/

Yembise, Y. S. (2010, Oct). Learners’ Responses on The Employment of Cultural EFL Material in English Classrooms in Papua. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(2). Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods Fourth Edition. SAGE Publications,

Inc.

Young, A. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (1998, Oct). ABCs of the Interview: The Role of Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Responses by Applicants in the Employment Interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment , 6(4), 211–221.

Young, T. (2010). How valid and useful is the notion of learning style? A multicultural investigation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 WCES-2010, 427–433 . Zhenhui, R. (2001, Jul). Matching Teaching Styles with Learning Styles in East Asian Contexts.

Retrieved Dec 20, 2010, from The Internet TESL Journal Vol. VII, No. 7: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Zhenhui-TeachingStyles.html

Zualkernan, I. A., Allert, J., & Qadah, G. (2005). A Cross-cultural Comparison of Learning Styles: The AUS-UMD Experience. The Second International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT’05).

Zulfikar, T. (2009). The Making of Indonesian Education: An Overview on Empowering Indonesian Teachers. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 13–39. Zywno, M. (2003). A Contribution to Validation of Score Meaning for Felder-Soloman's Index of

Learning Styles. ASEE Annual Conference. American Society for Engineering Education. Zywno, M. S. (2003). A Contribution to Validation of Score Meaning for FelderSoloman’s Index

of Learning Styles . Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition . American Society for Engineering Education.