Measuring the Effect of Learning Style Preference on Learners’ Argumentative Essay Writing Across Different Writing Strategies

2Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The investigation attempted to measure the effect of learning style preference across two different writing strategies in writing classes. The 58 subjects recruited from L2 classes comprised 19 visual, 21 auditory, and 18 kinesthetic learners. A 3x2 analysis of variance test was applied to work with the experimental data. The output confirmed a statistically significant interaction effect occurred among types of writing strategy (x1) and learning style preference (x2) on learners’ writing performance (y) at F (2, 57) =5.754, p= 0.006. There was also a significant effect of learning style preference at F (1, 57) = 70.949, p = 0.000. The analysis showed that learning style preference differed significantly among the three groups. Here, visual and auditory performed better on average than kinesthetic learners for writing performance. The main effect also confirmed a statistically significant effect of types of writing strategy occurred at F (2, 57) = 22.884, p = 0.000. Here, graphic organizers (GOs) differed significantly from non-graphic organizers (NGOs).

References Powered by Scopus

Visual Argument: Graphic Organizers Are Superior to Outlines in Improving Learning From Text

177Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis

149Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Reassessing the value of university lectures

79Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sabarun, Widiati, U., Suryati, N., & Azman, M. N. A. (2023). Measuring the Effect of Learning Style Preference on Learners’ Argumentative Essay Writing Across Different Writing Strategies. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(5), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v23i5.5935

Readers over time

‘23‘24‘2507142128

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 7

70%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

30%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Arts and Humanities 4

40%

Linguistics 4

40%

Social Sciences 1

10%

Physics and Astronomy 1

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0