La Consolacion University Philippines

City of Malolos, Bulacan

Student Affairs and Services

College Guidance
A.Y. 2018-2019

Profiling the Learner Types and Academic Performance of Selected freshman

students from the College of International Tourism and Hospitality Management
A.Y. 2018-2019
I. INTRODUCTION

As years go by, it could be clearly notice the change on how forms and strategies

of learning advances—from the traditional classroom setting to online education (Baig,

2011; Brecht, 2012; Erichsen & Bolliger, 2011; Stanton & Stanton, 2017), up to different

approaches that were implemented on how to collect and organize information into useful

data.

More to this, another important concern in learning is for an individual to take

responsibility for their own learning because, when learners take the responsibility of their

own learning, they attribute meaning to the process of learning, which leads to an effective

learning outcome (Odhiambo, 2015). Even so, there are many different factors that

influence how an individual learn new information and how they retain that information

(Jones & Blankenship, 2017), and not every individual has the same type of learning styles

or methodology.

As a result, within the past years, researchers have shown an increased attention in

learner styles as one of the key features that highly influences how an individual generally

learns (Cimermanova, 2018). Having an awareness on how students’ learn and how

learning style can affect one’s learning is essential for creating more effective teaching

strategies and innovative curriculum designs (Tomruk, et.al, 2016) appropriate for the

students. But what does Learning style mean?

Learning style is described as the unique way developed by students when he/she’s

learning new and difficult knowledge (Tomruk, et.al, 2016). It is “the preferential way in

which the student absorbs, processes, comprehends and retains information” (Teach.com,
2016, as cited in Jones & Blankenship, 2017). In other words, it is simply the appropriate

effective method of learning for an individual.

Using appropriate Learning style may help an individual, especially the students to

easily learn and understand an idea, and that previous studies have reported that students’

learning performance can be improve if proper learning style scopes could be taken into

consideration when developing instructional process (Graf, Liu, & Kinshuk, 2010, as cited

in Nzesei, 2015) that may help improve the academic performance of the students.

According to Nzesei (2015) Academic Performance is defined as “the successful

completion, through effort, of the acquisition of academic content and skills”, and could

be indicated or measured through numbers—in the context of grading and testing.

In line with this, the La Consolacion University Philippines- College Guidance

Office, with an aim to help the students to achieved growth and development, created a

Research Profiling which responds to the learning needs of the students through

administering Canfield’s Learning Styles Inventory—a psychological test administer to

address the student’s learning style preference or what kind of learners are the students of

College of International Tourism and Hospitality Management and their Academic

Performance on one of their Major subject during the 1st Semester, academic year 2018-

2019.

This Profiling will be beneficial to the students, for they will become aware of what

type of learners are they and their current academic performance. Thus, this may also

update the Professors who will be guiding the students in the learning process, what kind

of learners are these students or simply answers the question created by Nzesei (2015),

“how can we improve the achievement of our students if we do not know how they learn?”
 Thus, they could adjust their teaching methodology to what kind of learners are these

students. Also, this will be beneficial to the administrator of the College of International

Tourism and Hospitality Management in order to respond to the learning methodology

needs of their students.

II. METHODOLOGY

Data from this profiling was based on the result of the Psychological test, in the

form of Canfield’s Learning Style Inventory that was administered to the students during

the 1st semester of the academic year 2018-2019, on the following dates: September 4, 5,

6, and 11, 2018.

Canfield’s Learning Style Inventory is a self-report questionnaire that allows

students to describe what features of their educational experiences they prefer. This is a 30

item test, which usually answered for half an hour or more, depending on the students.

Respondents must read each item, and then rank the four responses based on their

preference: 1- most liked, 2- second most liked, 3- third most liked, and 4- least liked.

After the administration, the personnel from the College Guidance office scored the

test and do Purposive sampling. From the 9 Learner Types, which were Social/ Applied,

Applied, Independent/ Applied, Social, Neutral, Independent, Social/ Conceptual, Conceptual

Independent/ Conceptual, 20 respondents per learner types were identified, except to both

Independent/ Applied and Independent/ Conceptual who happened to only have 13

respondents.

Next to identifying was coordinating with the College of International Tourism and

Hospitality Management in order to identify the grades of the selected students in one of

their major subject, which is the THC3- Quality Service Management in Tourism and
 Hospitality Industry. This subject was chosen since it is a major subject and a must to be

learn for students who are studying in this College.

Table 1: Profile of the Respondents Thus to analyze the data,

Learner Type Male Female Total
Descriptive statistics was used.
Social/ Applied 20
4 38 16 62
Applied 20 Data was presented using the
5 25 15 75
Independent/ Applied 1 6 12 94 13 Frequency, Mean, Standard
Social 20
7 35 13 65
Deviation, and Variance per
Neutral 6 22 14 78 20
Independent 20 Learner Types and will be
8 40 12 60
Social/ Conceptual 20
8 40 12 60 presented on the Results and
Conceptual 11 55 9 45 20
Independent/ Conceptual 13 discussion part of this paper.
9 69 4 31
Total 59 36 107 64 166 As per Table 1, there were

a total of 166 respondents. 64% were Female (n=107), while 36% were Male (n=59).

As shown, for the Learner Type Social Applied, 62% were Female (n=16) whilst

38% were Male (n=2). For Applied, 75% were Female (n=15), while 25% were Male

(n=5). Independent/ Applied has the a total of 13 respondents since as per administration,

only 13 students were Independent/ Applied type of learners—94% were Female (n=12)

and 6% were Male (n=1). For Social Type of Learners, 65% were Female (n=13), while

35% were Male (n=7). For Neutral, 78% were Female (n=14), while 22% were Male (n=6).

For Independent and Social/ Conceptual, 60% were Female (n=12), and 45 were Male

(n=8). Conceptual has a total of 55% for Male (n=11) and 45% for Female (n=9). Lastly,

for Independent/ Conceptual, 69% were Male (n=9), and 31% were Female (n=4).
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

The following was revealed, suing the procedure that was discussed in the

methodology of this study.

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Grades per Learner Type

Learner Type Grades
1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0 Mean SD
Social/ Applied 0 1 3 9 3 3 1 0 0 1.83 .30645
% 0 5 15 45 15 15 5 0 0
Applied 0 0 1 9 6 3 1 0 0 1.93 .24468
% 0 0 5 45 30 15 5 0 0
Independent/ Applied 0 1 1 4 3 3 1 0 0 1.92 .34437
% 0 8 8 31 23 23 7 0 0
Social 0 0 2 8 5 3 2 0 0 1.94 .29104
% 0 0 10 40 25 15 10 0 0
Neutral 0 1 2 8 5 2 1 1 0 1.9 .34793
% 0 5 10 40 25 10 5 5 0
Independent 0 0 2 5 9 2 2 0 0 1.96 .27236
% 0 0 10 25 45 10 10 0 0
Social/ Conceptual 0 0 4 5 6 2 2 1 0 1.95 .35909
% 0 0 20 25 30 10 10 5 0
Conceptual 0 0 4 5 6 3 1 0 1 1.98 .36183
% 0 0 20 25 30 10 5 0 5
Independent/ 0 0 1 4 5 2 1 0 0 1.96 .26705
Conceptual
% 0 0 8 31 38 15 8 0 0
Total: 166 0 3 20 57 48 23 12 2 1

Table 2 presents the Frequency distribution of grades per Learner Types. As seen,

45% of the respondents from the Social Applied Learner style has a grade of 1.75 (n=9),

while there were least respondents whose grades were 1.25 and 2.5 (both with n=1),

equivalent to 5%. Whereas, there were no students who has a grade of 1.0, 2.17, and 3.0.

It has a mean of 1.83 and a standard deviation of .30645.

 As for Applied, 45% of the respondents has a grade of 1.75 (n=9), while 5% of the

respondents grade falls to 1.5 and 2.5 (both with n=1). Hence, there were no respondents

from this learner type who has a grade of 1.0. 1.25, 2.75, and 3.0. And, the mean grade for

this Learner type was 1.93, and has a standard deviation of .24468.

Next was Independent/ Applied, where 31% has a grade of 1.75 (n=31), while least

of the respondents or 7% has a grade of 2.5 (n=1). There was no respondents in this Learner

type whose grades were 1.0, 2.75, and 3.0. And, for this, the mean grade is 1.92, and a

standard deviation of .34437.

For Social Learners, 40% has a grade of 1.75 (n=8), while 10% of them has a grade

of 1.5 and 2.5 (both with n=2). There were no Social learner respondents who has a grade

of 1.0, 1.25, 2.75, and 3.0. Thus, it has a mean of 1.94 and has a standard deviation of

.29104.

40% of the Neutral type learners (n=8) has a grade of 1.75, whereas 5% has a grade

of 1.25, 2.5, and 2.75 (all with n=1). Again, in this learner type, there were no respondent

who has a grade of 1.0 and 3.0. Thus, 1.9 was the mean, and .34793 as the standard

deviation.

For Independent learners 45% has a grade of 2.0 (n=9), whilst 10% has a grade of

1.5, 2.25, and 2.5 (all n=2). In this learner type, no respondents has a grade of 1.0, 1.25,

2.75, and 3.0. Hereafter, it has a mean of 1.96 and a standard deviation of .27236.

As for Social/ Conceptual type, 30% of them has a grade of 2.0 (n=6) and the least

with 5% is with a grade of 2.75 (n=1). For this type, there were no respondents who got a

grade of 1.0, 1.25, and 3.0. It has a mean of 1.95 and a standard deviation of .35909.
 For the Conceptual type, 30% has a grade of 2.0 (n=6) and 5% has a grade of 2.5

and 3.0. In this learner type, no respondents has a grade of 1.0, 1.25, and 1.75. And, the

mean is 1.98, with a mean deviation of .36183.

Lastly, for Independent/ Conceptual, 38% has a grade of 2.0 (n=5), while 8% has a

grade of 1.5, and 2.5 (both with n=1). No respondents in this learner types has a grade of

1.0, 1.25, 2.75, and 3.0. It has a mean of 1.96 and has a standard deviation of .26705.

Discussion
The main aim of the study is to profile the Learning style, specifically the Learner

Types and Academic Performance of the selected freshman students of the College of

International Tourism and Hospitality Management for the academic year 2018-2019.

Result revealed that since for Independent/ Applied and Independent/ Conceptual

were not completed to 20 respondents, there is a high possibility that freshmen students

from the College of International Tourism and Hospitality Management were not likely to

be an these kinds of learners. This means that there is a less population of learner types

who prefers to work alone in their tasks, specifically if it is about doing instruction and

activities that are directly related to real-world situations. Another is that, less population

from the group preferred working alone especially if the task is highly organized language

rich materials. And thus, since other learner types were completed, there is a possibility

that they were students who likes to interact with their classmates and teachers, and likes

to work with a partner and will frequently ask for their teacher’s help or approval regarding

a classwork. For Social, combined with Applied, this means that students prefer instruction

and activities that are directly related to real-world situations, with a combination of

socializing with their classmates and professors. As for Social, combined with Conceptual,
this means that the students learners prefers highly organized language rich materials, with

the help of a partner or through groupings. Thus, least of these students prefers working

alone in their tasks as shown in the table.

As for the presentation of the grades, in relation to Learner types, it was revealed

that majority of the student’s grade falls to 1.75 to 2.0. This means that there is no

difference in the average of grades of the students, regardless of whatever Learner Types

they have.

In regards, the following limitations were realized why the result turned that way.

These limitations could be use by the future researchers who will be do a similar profiling.

First, the total number of respondents. In this study, only selected students were used as

respondents. Future researchers could consider to increase the number of participants or if

ever, they could profile the whole population. Second, the grade that was used in this study

was during the first semester. Since they were 1st year students, and on their first semester,

this could be a time of transition for them where they are still adjusting with the new

environment, new classmates, new Professors, and as new College students. With this,

future researchers may consider using 2nd semester, where students may probably have

adjusted in their new environment, or yet may consider using other year level as

respondents. In addition, in this profiling, the researchers only used a single Major subject

for the profiling of grades, which is really a limitation. With that, the researchers

recommend to future researchers to use General Weighted Average of the students rather

than using a single subject for a better profiling. Lastly, future researchers may consider

using other psychological tests to profile the learning types of the students.
References:

Ali Baig, M. (2011). A Critical Study of Effectiveness of Online Learning on Students'

Achievement. I-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4). DOI:
10.26634/jet.7.4.1391.
Brecht, H.D. (2012). Learning from Online Video Lectures. Journal of Information Technology
Education: 11.
Cimermanova, I. (2018). The Effect of Learning Styles on Academic Achievement in Different
Forms of Teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 11, (3).
Erichsen, E.A. & Bolliger, D.U. (2011). Towards understanding international graduate student
isolation in traditional and online environments. Education Tech Research Dev, 59:309–
326. DOI 10.1007/s11423-010-9161-6.
Jones, I.S & Blankenship, D. (2017). Learning style preferences and the online classroom.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 33.
Nzesei, N.H. (2015) A Correlation Study Between Learning Styles And Academic Achievement
Among Secondary School Students In Kenya. University of Nairobi.
Tomruk M.N., Yesilyaprak S.S., Karadibak, D., Savcı S. (2016). The relationship between learning
styles and academic performance in Turkish physiotherapy students. The 4th European
Congress of the ER-WCPT / Physiotherapy, 102S (2016) eS67–eS282.
Prepared by:

Ms. Roxannie D. Espique Ms. Camille S. de La Cruz, RPm

Testing Officer Psychometrician

Noted by:

Dr. Lolita C. Trani, RGC, RPsy

Coordinator, Guidance Services

Ms. Rosalyn S. Galvez

Director, Student Affairs and Services