Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022) 10(4): 565-580

©Author(s) 2022, open access at https://relp.isfahan.iau.ir/ DOI: 10.30486/RELP.2022.1944619.1315

Original Article

Learning Styles and Attention Control;

the Case of Iranian Female EFL Learners

Hamid Gholami1,*, Ensieh Aramesh1, Samira Golshani1*

1
Department of ELT, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Submission date: 10 November, 2021 Acceptance date: 01 February, 2022

Abstract
This study aimed to find out the most dominant learning style among Iranian EFL learners
and the potential differences in attention control of the learners with various learning styles.
In doing so, the Grasha-Richmann scale and a Victoria Stroop test were applied. A one-way
ANOVA and then a post hoc test was run to find out the possible differences among learners
with various learning styles in terms of attention control. The findings revealed the most
preferred style was the Independent style, by contrast, the participative was the least frequent
one. In addition, the avoidant learning style was not found in EFL learners' preferences. A
one-way ANOVA test was run to find out the attentional control differences in learners with
various styles. The results indicated a significant difference among learners in terms of
attention control and also language learners with independent learning styles performed
better on the attentional control test.
Keywords: Attentional control, EFL learner, Grasha-Richmann student learning styles
scale, Learning style, Victoria Stroop Test

Corresponding Author’s E- mail: [email protected]

 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

1. Introduction
One of the major concerns in the field of education is learning effectively. Obtaining
enough information on the behavior of the learners can facilitate the process of learning.
The achievement of second language learning is not only because of cognitive factors but
also affective, personality, motivational, and demographic factors (Brown, 2000);
individuals' style is of excessive prominence (Carrel et al., 1996). Learners differ in their
learning preferences (Dunn & Stevenson, 1997). Learning style in education is not new.
For the past three decades, various studies have been performed on learning styles (e.g.,
Lewis, 2011).
Reid (1995) categorized learning-style investigation into three main classes: cognitive learning
style, sensory learning style, and personality learning style. Cognitive learning styles are further
categorized as Field-independent or Field-dependent learning styles; those learning more effectively
step by step, starting with evaluating facts and continuing to ideas. In contrast, Field dependent
individuals learn in context and holistically. Analytic or global learning style is the way that the
learners learn in isolation and desire setting objectives. On the other hand, global learners learn more
successfully over concrete experience and in collaboration with other people. Reflective or impulsive
learning style is the way that learners learn more efficiently when they have a chance to study
possibilities before replying. At the same time, impulsive learners reply instantly and take risks.
One of the pioneers in learning style research is Dunn (1984), who identified
different styles for learning. Among different definitions proposed for learning style,
Grasha (1996) described learning styles as personal characteristics that impact a learner’s
ability to obtain information, to interact with peers and the instructor, and to take part in
learning experiences. The six learning styles in this model are competitive, collaborative,
avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent. The characteristics of each style are
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.
Summary of the Grasha-Riechmann Learning Style
Competitive Students tend to compete with others for the rewards and be at the center of attention
Collaborative Learners share their ideas and talents and cooperate with others
Avoidant They are not interested and do not participate in class activities
Participant They are eager to take part in class activities and prefer to have discussion
Dependent They are not curious and tend to get support from others.
Independent They tend to work alone and are confident in learning by themselves.

566
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

Prior research has shown that students learn better when they are conscious of their
learning styles (Barman & Muhamed Yusoff, 2014; O'Connor, 1997). As an instance,
when a learner does not perform well in listening, they can apply visual learning strategies
such as note-taking while listening and these strategies will make the learning process
better. Recent studies have examined learning styles by various questionnaires (Chetty et
al., 2019; Ghasemi et al., 2014; Li, 2012). In a study by (Izadi & Mohammadzadeh
Edmolaee, 2008), the importance of learning styles, especially active learning and abstract
conceptualization, as the prediction of educational performance of learners was
highlighted. Csapo and Hayen (2006) found that a mismatch between university students’
and faculties’ learning styles results in an ineffective learning process.
Baneshi et al. (2014) examined the learning style differences between science and
humanities majors in undergraduate and graduate students in Tehran. Female students were
cooperative, participative, and dependent styles. In another investigation into learning
styles, Azarkhordad and Mehdinezhad (2016) found that student teachers in Zahedan were
dominant in cooperation, dependent, and partnership styles on GRSLSS inventory. In a
similar study, İlçin et al. (2018) aimed to identify the Turkish undergraduate students’
learning styles and whether the learning styles could affect on academic performance. The
learning style was positively associated with academic performance. In addition, they
found the collaborative style as the most common learning style among participants.
Recently, an empirical study by Cimermanová, (2018) tried to find potential relation
between the preferred learning style, the form of teaching, and academic achievement.
Although, the study did not reveal any relationship between the learning styles, the form of
teaching, and learners’ performance. Generally, recognizing students’ learning styles can
facilitate the process of learning as it helps instructors develop more efficient curriculum
and educational programs compatible with learners’ preferences and consequently
motivates students’ participation to gain knowledge effectively.
Previous investigations tried to explore influencing factors on the learning process,
including individual differences and cognitive measures. For example, Graf et al. 2005
investigated the learning styles and the relationship between the styles and cognitive
characteristics of students. They revealed that learners with low working memory capacity
prefer an active, sensing, visual, and global learning style. In contrast, those with higher
working memory capacity tend to be reflective, intuitive, and sequential. In the same vein,

567
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

(Onyekuru, 2015) examined the relationships among field dependence-field independence

cognitive style, gender, job choice, and academic achievement of the students in Nigeria.
They found a significant association between field-(in)dependence cognitive style and
gender. According to their findings, field-independent students had a higher mean in
sciences whereas field-dependent students had a higher mean achievement in arts.
Moreover, there was a significant relationship between field dependence-field
independence cognitive style and job choice.
One domain of research that has been little explored is the relationship between
learning styles and attentional control. Attention is essential for language learning to
happen and a level of attention named noticing is the significant need for learning
grammatical rules of a second language. Noticing presented as one of the three functions of
output in SLA can be measured to have some levels (Schmidt, 1990). In what Schmidt and
Frota (1986) named noticing the gap principle, learners notice how their interlanguage is
unlike the target language. On another level, learners notice that they cannot say what they
want to say exactly in the target language. Nonetheless, there are some conflicts among
researchers on the part and amount of consciousness in learning (Izumi, 2002).
As our ability to distinguish, process, and understand all surrounding motivations is
restricted, we must discern these stimuli. Attention manages both the choice of stimuli and
the recording of it in memory. No input is obtained for more processing except it is joined.
Attention can be presented to one stimulus in preference to another and maybe concerned
with overtly or covertly. Attention itself can have several basic processes, including
sensory selection, response selection, attentional capacity, and sustained performance. It is
widely accepted that attention plays a significant role in language learning (Robinson et al.,
2013). Schmidt (2010) has expressed that "people learn about the things that they attend to
and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to" (p. 7). Previous studies in
cognitive psychology and second language acquisition (SLA) have also examined the role
of attention in mediating input and learning. Results of such research show that attention is
essential for learning to happen (Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 2012).
Only a few research shed light on the differences in attentional control of EFL
learners with various learning styles so far. Guisande et al. (2007) assessed children with
various field dependence-independence cognitive styles to find the potential differences in
tasks measuring aspects of attentional functioning. Because learners’ attention level affects

568
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

learning achievements and also learning English as a foreign language in Iran generally
happens in the classroom context, where instructors play a significant role and students'
learning process is largely affected by the teaching activities, any language instructor needs
to follow helpful ways to enhance more input into intake by raising learners' awareness and
consider the role that various factors such as learning styles play in attention control. In the
previous research, attentional control has been examined via neuropsychological
assessment tools namely Posner task, attention network test, Flanker task, and Stroop test.
The Stroop color-word test has been a widely used task to measure attentional control (e.g.,
Cohen et al., 1989; Zhang et al., 2013). Participants need to control their attention on the
color of the words while reading and this requires some degree of attention.
The present study is significant for teachers as it equips them with knowledge about
the variety of language learning styles among their students and consequently assists them
apply methods to meet the students' requirements. Further, it can give learners perspectives
into their possible learning abilities and weaknesses. Considering the importance of
attention and learners’ styles in students' performances, the current study aims to explore
the most dominant language learning style among Iranian advanced female EFL learners
and also to examine whether there is a significant difference in attentional control of the
learners with various learning styles.
The questions posed in the present study are as follows:
1. What is the dominant learning style among Iranian advanced female EFL learners?
2. Is there a significant difference in attentional control of Iranian advanced female
EFL learners with various learning styles?

3. Methodology
3.1. Design and Context of the Study
Due to research questions and the nature of the study, the current research was
carried out quantitatively and has a cross-sectional design. The convenience sampling
method was employed and the study was carried out in Kermanshah, Iran.

3.2. Participants
A total of ninety-four advanced female learners, ranging in age from 19 to 30 (M =
23.8, SD = 3.2), were recruited from different language institutes, Kermanshah, Iran. The

569
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

selection of the participants was determined based on the language schools' hierarchy to
ensure that they were homogeneous regarding their knowledge of English. It is worth
mentioning that the language school administers an actual TOEFL PBT test before letting
the students attend the advanced courses and allows only those who score above 540 to
attend the advanced course. All of the participants were undergraduate students. They
belonged to middle socioeconomic status, which was determined via a detailed self-report
questionnaire based on an individual's occupation and the highest level of formal
education.

3.3. Instruments
3.3.1 Grasha-Richmann Student Learning Styles Scale
To identify the learners' learning styles, (Grasha, 1996) learning styles, adopted from
Baneshi et al. (2013), was utilized. It consists of six styles, collaborative, avoidant,
competitive, dependent, participative, and independent, and 51 items. Each item needed the
participants to respond by always, often, sometimes, rarely, never. A learner was
recognized as potent in a style if she got the highest average score on that style. The
questionnaire was considered a valid and reliable test as Baneshi et al. (2013) reported its
high validity and reliability in Iranian context.

3.3.2 Victoria Stroop Color-Word Test (VST)

To assess the learners' attention control, a computerized VST, implemented in
Psychopy software, was applied. The Victoria version has several merits. First, it is
concise, unlike other versions with many parts on each component activity so participants
do not get extended practice during the test. Second, an interference score independent of
cognitive speed is calculated. Researchers mostly rely on the interference score, the VST is
in the generic realm, and those who employ the test may make their stimuli (Strauss et al.,
2006).
The test consists of three different slides (Dots, Words, and Colors) with 24 stimuli
in four colors: green, yellow, blue, and red. All the slides have 6 rows of 4 items. In the
first slide, colored dots were presented randomly. In "word" condition, neutral Persian
words; ‫( درب‬door), ‫( روز‬Chetty et al., 2019), ‫( اما‬but), ‫( چپ‬left) were shown in different
colors. On the color-word slide, the words ‫( آبی‬blue), ‫( قرمز‬red), ‫( سبز‬green), ‫( زرد‬yellow)

570
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

were presented in contrasting colors, red, blue, green, or yellow. VST has been validated in
a variety of research previously (reviewed in (Malek et al., 2013).

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

Participants were invited to complete a Grasha Riechmann Student Learning Style
Scale. The students responded to the instrument by checking one of the five-point Likert
scales ranging from always to never. Thereafter, the VST was administered. Participants
were instructed to say the color of the dots or the font color of the words on each slide. The
researcher recorded the participants’ voices during color naming in Persian to measure the
time and the number of errors. Since the Persian alphabetical system is read and written
from right to left, participants were asked to name the colors of the dots or the words from
right to left in each row as quickly and accurately as possible. The examiner moved to the
next slide by pressing the 'space' key after naming the colors in each slide. An immediate
correction was made by the examiner in case the participants did not correct their errors
themselves as suggested by Strauss et al. (2006). The VST produces three scores: time to
complete part D (dots), part W (neutral words), and part C (colors). To examine inhibitory
control, we calculated the interference score: time to complete the Color word slide divided
by the time to complete the Dot slide (Strauss et al., 2006).

3.5. Data Analysis Procedure

A one-way ANOVA test on SPSS was run to find out the differences among learners
with various learning styles in terms of attentional control. In addition to the ANOVA test,
a post hoc test was employed to find out more detailed information on the differences
among learners with various language learning styles in terms of attention control. To
determine the reliability of the Victoria Stroop test, two weeks before the main test, the
researcher administered VST with 35 of the participants. The result of Cronbach's alpha for
test-retest reliability indicated high reliability (r = 0.87).

4. Results
4.1. Addressing the First Research Question
To find out the most dominant learning style among Iranian EFL learners, the mean
score for each learning style, preferred by English learners, was computed. A learner was

571
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

recognized as potent in a style if she got the highest average score on that style. Table. 2
indicates the descriptive statistics of five language learning styles.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics Needed for Comparing the Language Learning Styles
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Collaborative 18 9.05 26.24 14.21 5.68
Participative 20 7.9 16.71 11.03 3.52
Dependent 22 12.17 14.84 13.38 .84
Competitive 18 7.33 17.26 13.36 3.39
Independent 16 11.06 22.44 17.31 4.44

As the mean score in each learning style shows, the preferred styles by the
participants are independent, collaborative, dependent, competitive, and participative
hierarchically. Therefore, it can be concluded that the independent style was the most
dominant learning style among Iranian EFL learners. It should be mentioned that the
avoidant style was not selected by the learners.

4.2. Addressing The Second Research Question

First, we tested the normality of the data and the homogeneity of variances. As the
result of the Shapiro-Wilk test shows the assumptions of normality have been met (see
Table 3). The result of Levene's test indicated that the assumption of the equality of
variances has been violated, F (4, 89) = 2.8, P = 0.03.

Table 3.
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Styles Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
VST Participative .151 20 .200* .923 20 .112
Collaborative .317 18 .000 .817 18 .093
Competitive .234 18 .010 .823 18 .053
Dependent .163 22 .135 .918 22 .170
Independent .210 16 .058 .863 16 .051

572
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

Therefore, due to the inequality of sample size and heterogeneity of variances,

Welch’s ANOVA was run. Table. 4 shows a statistically significant difference between
learners’ styles attentional control, F (4,42) = 4.1, p = 0.006).

Table 4.
Welch’s ANOVA Test
Robust Tests of Equality of Means

VST

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 4.132 4 42.429 .006

Post hoc comparisons were then run using the Games-Howell test and the figures
revealed that the mean score for attentional control in independent learning style (M = 2.3,
SD = 0.38) was significantly different from Participative, Competitive and Dependent style
(P < 0.05) on the Victoria Stroop test (see Table 5).

Table 5.
Post hoc Test
Multiple Comparisons
Games-Howell

(Dunn & Stevenson) (Dunn & Stevenson)

Learning Style Learning Style Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Independent Participative .50231* .12372 .003
Collaborative .32880 .12632 .095
Competitive .37188* .10812 .017
Dependent .33951* .10769 .033
Note. * shows that the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Individuals with independent learning styles outperformed in the VST attention

control test. Interestingly, looking at the mean the participative style indicates the poorest
performance on the attention control test (See Table 6).

573
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics of Styles on Attentional Control Tes
Descriptive

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Participative 20 2.8761 .34962 .07818
Collaborative 18 2.0496 .34888 .08223
Competitive 18 2.0065 .21189 .04994
Dependent 22 2.0389 .22992 .04902
Independent 16 1.9784 .38356 .09589
Total 94 2.0579 .34130 .03520

5. Discussion
The objective of the current study was to explore the most dominant language
learning style and the differences in attention control of Iranian advanced EFL learners.
The findings revealed that Iranian learners’ styles are ranked as the independent,
collaborative, dependent, competitive, and participative styles, respectively, while the
Avoidant language learning style was not found in EFL learners' preferences. In other
words, the most preferred language learning style among Iranian EFL learners was
Independent and Participative was the least frequent one. Therefore, they desire to make
decisions and do things individually and they have less tendency to collaborate and
compete with others. Such a preference toward independent learning can be traced to the
educational system of Iran that fosters individual study rather than collaboration and
participation since as Huseynpur and Sadeghoghli (2015) asserted individual work is the
most common learning practice in the Iranian learning context.
In terms of attentional control, the results also indicated that there was a significant
difference in VST performance in Iranian advanced EFL learners with various language
learning styles, and independent-style-dominant learners outperformed on the attentional
control test. One can speculate that the higher attention control among independent is the
result of years of practicing individual works at school or university. As discussed, this is
because in individual work, the factors that can distract attention are not present and
learners put more concentration on the task which over years can foster their ability to
hinder the upcoming distraction which can consequently result in better attention control.
There has been some evidence of the benefits of an independent learning style for the
students, including progressed educational execution, higher motivation, higher self-

574
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

esteem, better knowledge of their limitations, and better abilities, that helps instructors to
design specific activities for learners in the classroom (Meyer et al., 2008).
In contrast to our study, Amira and Jelas (2010) found that females’ scores in
collaborative, dependent, participative, and competitive styles were considerably higher.
Also, interestingly, our findings are not consistent with some previous research seeking
students’ learning styles using Grasha-Riechmann’s questionnaire. For instance,
Azarkhordad and Mehdinezhad (2016) investigated 274 students’ learning styles. They
found dependent style as the dominant learning style among females. Additionally, our
results contradict a study by Baneshi et al. (2014) that found female students learning
styles were cooperative, participative, and dependent. İlçin et al. (2018) examined the
learning styles of Turkish physiotherapy students using the Grasha-Riechmann Student
Learning Style Scales and tried to find the potential association between academic
performance and learning style subscale scores. The result revealed collaborative style as
the most common style among Turkish students and participants’ learning style was
associated with significantly higher academic performance.
Hamidah et al. (2009) observed that females preferred learning styles are
collaborative, participative, competitive, and dependent. Mahamod et al. (2010) also found
that females prefer collaborative, dependent, and participative styles more than males do,
by contrast, males’ scores are higher in the dependent, avoidant and competitive styles.
The findings of this study are not parallel with the study carried out by Brahim and Ramli
(2010) that found the kinesthetic style as the most opted language learning style. Riazi and
Mansoorian (2008) also investigated Iranian EFL learners' preferred language learning
styles. The findings showed that learners selected the auditory, visual, tactile, and 61
kinesthetic learning styles as the main styles, and they preferred the singular and class
learning styles as their inferior styles.

6. Conclusion
In sum, regarding the role of cognitive language learning styles, various research has
indicated that some of these language learning styles have a significant role in learning a
language. Thus, it is significant for instructors to distinguish their students' learning styles
and provide the training environment based on the students' style of learning (Celce-
Murcia & McIntosh, 1991). Learning style, like other human characteristics, can change or

575
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

be reinforced based on the educational procedures and context (Grasha, 1996). Learners’
learning style is one of the variables that require discussion when studying learners'
performance. The findings of this study indicated the significance of identifying learners'
learning styles and that varieties exist among learners from various attention levels. The
study offers that it’s a good idea to inform learners about their learning style priorities or at
least the teachers can clarify for them that such a thing (style preference) exists. Such
clarification can help them to understand that the speed with which they digest linguistic
items or do the tasks in the classroom is not necessarily related to learning deficits or
cognitive advantage but to their learning styles. The results are helpful for EFL instructors
to improve learning outcomes and consider cognitive and affective factors that are vitally
significant in the learning process. That is, instructors should explore ways to improve
students' noticing in language classes to enhance Iranian EFL students' L2 success.
Generally speaking, attention is decisive for comprehending second and foreign
language learning. What takes place within the attentional region primarily identifies the
course of language enhancement, including the development of information (constitution
of new displays) and the enhancement of fluency (availability to those displays). Proof
carries on acquiring that noticing has a powerful influence on second and foreign language
learning. Distinct differences are a significant segment of the story, and both tendencies
and capabilities impact who notices what (Bigelow et al., cited in Schmidt, 2010). These
have highly started to be found out, but this is an encouraging area for future study, which
could also productively include a study program to determine the ways that students'
internal variables such as language learning styles differ in terms of noticing.
The findings of this survey can assist EFL instructors to enhance the learners'
learning achievements since they should pay attention to cognitive factors along with
learning styles in designing tasks and explore ways to improve students' noticing in
language classes. Additionally, it is significant for ESL/EFL teachers to abet their learners
to utilize more suitable language learning styles, particularly those found in the literature.
In providing instructing contents and plans, consideration should be paid to learning styles
and attention level and a wide span of instructing methods should be applied so that the
various learning priorities are purveyed for. When organizing curriculums, it is reasonable
to identify the learners' learning styles and their attention levels. Thus, it seems significant

576
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

for an instructor to be informed of the students' preferences of language learning styles in

terms of attention to provide students' consent and gain in educational contexts.
This research suffers from several limitations notably related to sample size. The
participants were limited to learners at the private language institutes in Kermanshah, Iran.
Therefore, further study is required to be done at schools or university levels to contrast the
findings. The results, due to the difference between various learning styles in terms of
attention control were determined by the Grasha-Richmann student learning styles scale
and the computerized Victoria version of the Stroop color-word test. Using other
instruments such as interviews could give a more complete outcome.
Future research is envisaged to collect the data from a larger number of learners in an
experimental design, rather than in a mere quantitative design, to increase generalizability.
The present research was carried out with EFL students at the advanced level. Learners at
other levels, elementary and intermediate, were not studied in the current study. It is
suggested that other surveys be carried out with lower levels, as well. Moreover, the study
was done on the relation between the factors of attention control and language learning
styles, and the learners' gender and age might assist the training system to perform more
effectively. Another aspect to study stands in the relationship between attention control and
language learning strategies. Further surveys can be run in the domains of language
learning strategies, attention control, and the relationship between the two. Finally, future
surveys can extend the findings of the present research by assuming other mediating
factors. These recommendations need precious long analysis in the future.

References
Amira, R., & Jelas, Z. M. (2010). Teaching and learning styles in higher education institutions: Do they
match? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 680-684.
Azarkhordad, F., & Mehdinezhad, V. (2016). Explaining the students’ learning styles based on Grasha-
Riechmann’s student learning styles. Journal of Administrative Management, Education and Training,
12(6), 241-247.
BANESHI, A. R., KARAMDOUST, N. A., & HAKIMZADEH, R. (2013). Validity & reliability of the
Persian version of Grasha-Richmann student learning styles scale. Journal of Advances in Medical
Education & Professionalism, 1(4), 119-124.
Baneshi, A. R., Tezerjani, M. D., & Mokhtarpour, H. (2014). Grasha-Richmann college students’ learning
styles of classroom participation: Role of gender and major. Journal of Advances in Medical
Education & Professionalism, 2(3), 103-110.

577
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

Barman, A., & Muhamed Yusoff, Y. (2014). Learning style awareness and academic performance of
students. South‐East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 8(1), 47-51.
Celce-Murcia, M., & McIntosh, L. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. The Electronic
Journal for English as a Second Language, 5(4).
Chetty, N. D. S., Handayani, L., Sahabudin, N. A., Ali, Z., Hamzah, N., Rahman, N. S. A., & Kasim, S.
(2019). Learning styles and teaching styles determine students' academic performances. International
Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(4), 610-615.
Cimermanová, I. (2018). The effect of learning styles on academic achievement in different forms of
teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 219-232.
Cohen, J., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. (1989). Control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed
processing account of the Stroop effect. Technical report.
Csapo, N., & Hayen, R. (2006). The role of learning styles in the teaching/learning process. Issues in
information systems, 7(1), 129-133.
Dunn, R., & Stevenson, J. M. (1997). Teaching diverse college students to study with a learning-styles
prescription. College Student Journal, 31, 333-339.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance
versus formal instruction. Applied linguistics, 14(4), 385-407.
Ghasemi, M., Rafieepour, A., Asghari, M., Abbassinia, M., Tabbak, R., Ahmadnezhad, I., &
Dormohammadi, A. (2014). Survey of learning styles of the students in the Department of Health in
Arak University of Medical Sciences based on Kolb’s Model. International Research Journal of
Applied and Basics Sciences, 8(9), 1442-1446.
Graf, S., Lin, T. & Kinshuk, A. (2005). Improving student modeling: the relationship between learning styles
and cognitive traits. In In Proceedings of IDIS International Conference on Cognition and
Exploratory Learning Digital Age (CELDA2005), 1-8.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding
teaching and learning styles. Alliance publishers.
Guisande, M. A., Páramo, M. F., Tinajero, C., & Almeida, L. S. (2007). Field dependence-independence
(FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema, 19(4), 572-577.
Hamidah, J. S., Sarina, M. N., & Jusoff, K. (2009). The social interaction learning styles of science and social
science students. Asian Social Science, 5(7), 58-64.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15(2), 245-259.
Huseynpur, B., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2015). Iranian students' learning styles. Journal of Applied Linguistics
(Dubai), 1(3), 21-30.
Ibrahim, N., & Ramli, N. (2010). A comparative study on the learning styles of second-year education (living
skills) students and the teaching styles of their lectures. Retrieved on july, 9, 2012.

578
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

İlçin, N., Tomruk, M., Yeşilyaprak, S. S., Karadibak, D., & Savcı, S. (2018). The relationship between
learning styles and academic performance in TURKISH physiotherapy students. BMC medical
education, 18(1), 1-8.
Izadi, S., & Mohammadzadeh Edmolaee, R. (2008). A Study of Relationship between Learning Styles,
Personality Charac-teristics and Academic Performance. Teaching and Learning Research, 5(2), 15-
28.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL
relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition research.
Routledge.
Li, C. (2012). An Investigation of Chinese Students' Learning Styles at an English-medium University in
Mainland China. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 6.
Mahamod, Z., Embi, M. A., Yunus, M. M., Lubis, M. A., & Chong, O. S. (2010). Comparative learning
styles of Malay language among native and non-native students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 9, 1042-1047.
Malek, A., Hekmati, I., Amiri, S., Pirzadeh, J., & Gholizadeh, H. (2013). The standardization of Victoria
Stroop color-word test among Iranian bilingual adolescents. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 16(7), 380-
385.
Marrison, D. L., & Frick, M. J. (1994). The effect of agricultural students’ learning styles on academic
achievement and their perceptions of two methods of instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education,
35(1), 26-30.
Meyer, B., Haywood, N., Sachdev, D., & Faraday, S. (2008). What is independent learning and what are the
benefits for students. Department for Children, Schools and Families Research Report, 51.
O'Connor, T. (1997). Using learning styles to adapt technology for higher education. Retrieved April, 17,
2006.
Onyekuru, B. U. (2015). Field Dependence-Field Independence Cognitive Style, Gender, Career Choice and
Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers
State. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(10), 76-85.
Riazi, A., & Mansoorian, M. A. (2008). Learning style preferences among Iranian male and female EFL
students. The Iranian EFL Journal, 2, 88-100.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational psychology,
11(3-4), 193-215.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Schmidt, R. (2013). Attention and awareness in second language
acquisition. In The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 265-285). Routledge.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and
awareness in learning. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 9, 1-63.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In Perspectives on
individual characteristics and foreign language education (pp. 27-50). De Gruyter Mouton.

579
 Research in English Language Pedagogy (2022)10(4): 565-580

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2),
129-158.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests:
Administration, norms, and commentary. American Chemical Society.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1976). Field dependence revisited. ETS Research Bulletin Series,
1976(2),80-85.
Zhang, L.-f., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology
Review, 17(1), 1-53.
Zhang, L., Ding, C., Li, H., Zhang, Q., & Chen, A. (2013). The influence of attentional control on stimulus
processing is category-specific in Stroop tasks. Psychological Research, 77(5), 599-610.

580