An exploratory study for factorial validity of cognitive styles among Japanese adult EFL learners: from educational and cultural perspectives

Toshinori Yasuda

doi:10.1186/s40862-018-0063-1

Abstract

One of the major issues in L2 learning and cognitive styles is the ambiguity of these concepts. A solution to this issue should involve the following two aspects. First, studies of factorial validity should be conducted with empirical data, and with an appropriate analysis using a theoretically well-developed scale. Second, such studies should focus on a particular group of learners, as the learning and cognitive styles could be affected by learners’ cultural and educational backgrounds. This study, focusing particularly on cognitive styles, aims (1) to explore whether the concept of cognitive styles represented in the Ehrman and Leaver Learning Style Questionnaire (Ehrman & Leaver, Ehrman and Leaver Learning Style Questionnaire, 2002) show factorial validity for Japanese adult EFL learners and (2) if it does not, to explain the new factor structure, particularly in terms of Japanese educational and cultural backgrounds. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the dataset comprising 362 Japanese adult EFL learners, and the frequency distribution of each extracted factor was also investigated. (1) The result did not support the factorial validity as it extracted three factors different from the original questionnaire: impulsive – reflective (access to actual behavior), active – passive (cognitive engagement), and global – particular (cognitive focus); and (2) the new factor structure is discussed in terms of Japanese backgrounds such as cautious behavior, on which a certain value is often placed in Japanese culture, and the influences of university entrance examinations in the Japanese education system. The last part of the paper describes some pedagogical implications for effective use of the questionnaire in practical situations.

Highlights

Introduction and literature reviewCurrent issues in learning styles With the prevalence of the learner-centered approach, a paradigm shift has emerged, abandoning conventional and uniform methods of education, in various situations
(1) The result did not support the factorial validity as it extracted three factors different from the original questionnaire: impulsive – reflective, active – passive, and global – particular; and (2) the new factor structure is discussed in terms of Japanese backgrounds such as cautious behavior, on which a certain value is often placed in Japanese culture, and the influences of university entrance examinations in the Japanese education system
For factor loadings to be significant, researchers have recommended a minimum value of ±.30 (e.g., Cliff & Hamburger, 1967; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998), and this study removed some question items based on this criterion

Summary

Introduction

Introduction and literature reviewCurrent issues in learning styles With the prevalence of the learner-centered approach, a paradigm shift has emerged, abandoning conventional and uniform methods of education, in various situations. Through investigations of individual differences in both their theoretical and practical aspects, Yasuda Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (2019) 4:3 the concept of learning styles has developed, which aims to explain “how people learn in different ways and how we all have our own preferred, more effective, ways of learning” The fields of psychology and business, as well as education, have paid great attention to learning styles, mainly in Europe and the United States, academic interest has gradually waned over the last 10 years. Academic studies have long suffered from a lack of evidence on the existence and effects of learning styles. Coffield (2005) states that “the field of learning styles suffers from almost fatal flaws of theoretical incoherence and conceptual confusion” According to the Learning and Skills Research Center in the United Kingdom, more than 70 theoretical models have been suggested (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004). Coffield (2005) states that “the field of learning styles suffers from almost fatal flaws of theoretical incoherence and conceptual confusion” (p. 28)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion