Learning styles2 (Final)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING STYLES AND ACCEPTANCE
LEVEL OF THINKING MAPS AMONG MODULE 1 STUDENTS IN KEDAH

MATRICULATION COLLEGE

Ang Beng Im

Lock Shu Ping

Kedah Matriculation College
Ministry of Education
06010 Changlun
Kedah Darul Aman

[email protected]

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between
learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps among Module
1 students in Kedah Matriculation College. This research is important to
find out VAK learning styles (visual, auditory and kinaesthetic styles) that
students apply during learning and whether it affects their acceptance
level of Thinking Maps. The first variable is VAK while the second variable
is their acceptance level of Thinking Maps. The research design is a
combination of quantitative method via survey method (questionnaire) and
qualitative method through structured interviews. Data was gathered
through two instruments, firstly, questionnaire distribution to an
anonymous random stratified sampling of 254 out of 750 Module 1
students that consist of male and female students (1:2 ratio). Structured
interviews were conducted on five randomly chosen Module 1 students.
The research results show that the highest learning style preference is
visual followed by both auditory and kinaesthetic and respondents showed
a high acceptance level with the overall mean score 3.68 and above.
There is no significant correlation between genders and the acceptance
level of Thinking Maps as both male and female students use Thinking
Maps to pattern information and there is no significant association
between genders and learning styles. There is an association between
learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps and learning
style is significantly correlated to acceptance level of Thinking Maps.

Keywords: Learning styles, Thinking Maps, Visual learning, Auditory
learning, Kinaesthetic learning

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study
According to an article published in the Manual Kajian Tindakan by the Bahagian

Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan (2005), Education Ministry, Thinking Maps is
a set of graphic organizer techniques used in Malaysian primary and secondary schools
since 2005. These maps are supposed to provide a common visual language for

1 
 

information structure often employed when students take notes. Thinking Maps are
visual tools for learning and include eight visual patterns each linked to a specific
cognitive process. Visualizing thinking allows students to have a concrete image of
abstract thoughts. Visual representations enhance the brain’s natural ability to detect and
construct meaningful patterns. Thinking Maps reduce anxiety by providing familiar visual
patterns for thinking and working with complex ideas and situations. Teachers may apply
Thinking Maps in all content areas and all levels.

An article retrieved from wwww.thinkingmaps.com, published by Thinking Maps, Inc.
stated that Thinking Maps are eight specific visual patterns. The eight types are Circle
Map used for defining in context; Bubble Map used for describing with adjectives; Flow
Map used for sequencing and ordering events; Brace Maps used for identifying part or
whole relationships; Tree Map used for classifying or grouping; Double Bubble Map used
for comparing and contrasting; Multi-flow Map used for analyzing causes and effects and
Bridge Map used for illustrating analogies.

I-Think Programme, proposed by the Education Ministry of Malaysia was
implemented to expose students to a new thinking tool, to elevate High Order Thinking
Skills (HOTs) and to introduce to teachers another alternative teaching technique that
will change old teaching methods and practices. Promoting a different classroom
environment to make it creative and fun for students, cost-effectiveness because it saves
time and paper and using graphics and images to stimulate thinking, facilitate
understanding and strengthen students’ retention are several benefits of i-Think maps.
According to Shahabudin Ishak (2005), teaching and learning environment that
integrates elements of multiple intelligences are able to develop scientific attitudes and
values to design learning methods that fit students’ learning preferences.

I-Think maps were introduced in the new syllabus for KMK one year programme
students in 2016. Approximately 1000 students were involved in learning eight i-Think
maps as a tool to master concepts and understand ideas in text through graphics and
images. This research focuses on 750 Module 1 students who learn Biology, Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics as their core subjects while they learn the English language
as they will be sitting for the Malaysian University English Test (MUET) which is a
language entrance examination to public universities. Module 1 students have been
exposed to i-Think maps in classes and have submitted projects for coursework
assessment using i-Think maps. Thinking Maps are becoming more popular in schools
but there is little study at higher learning institutions. There is little research on the
relationship of learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps. Most of the
research topics are on the effects of mind maps on students’ achievement in schools.

1.2 Statement of Problem
The main purpose of this research is to investigate whether VAK learning styles

influenced students’ acceptance level of Thinking Maps. Through our observation in
tutorial classes and lectures, students use Thinking Maps in coursework projects when
they are instructed to do so by their lecturers. However, students also listen passively
and take notes during lectures and tutorials. Therefore, questions arise whether students
use Thinking Maps for both academic and non-academic matters? Do they use Thinking
Maps out of the classroom setting? Is the use of Thinking Maps ingrained in their lives?

1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to investigate whether learning styles of Module 1

students of Kedah Matriculation College correlated with their acceptance level of
Thinking Maps. Research shows that using eight Thinking Maps promote metacognition
and continuous cognitive development for students across their academic careers, as
well as adds an artistic and kinaesthetic component for students who learn effectively
with that specific multiple intelligences.

2 

 

1.4 Research Objectives (VAK Questionnaire)
The aims of the research objectives are to investigate:
i) specific learning styles among PST Module 1 students using the VAK
questionnaire developed by Barbe, W. B., Milone, M. N., & Swassing, R. H.
(1979)
ii) the acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST Module 1 students
iii) the relationship between gender and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps.
iv) the relationship between gender and learning styles
v) the relationship between learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking
Maps
vi) the relationship between learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking
Maps

1.5 Research Objectives (Structured Interviews)
The research objectives are to investigate:
i) the impact of the i-Think programme on Module 1 students
ii) the impact of Thinking Maps on the teaching and learning process

1.6 Research Questions (VAK Questionnaire)
The following research questions were formulated to investigate:
i) What is the learning style among PST Module 1 students?
ii) What is the specific acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST module 1
students?
iii) Is there any significant difference in learning styles among PST module 1
students according to gender?
iv) Is there any significant difference about the acceptance level of Thinking Maps
according to gender?
v) Is there any significant difference between the acceptance level of Thinking Maps
according to the learning styles?
vi) Is there any relationship between learning styles and the level of acceptance on
Thinking Maps?

1.7 Research Questions (Structured Interviews)
i) What is the impact of the i-Think programme on Module 1 students?
ii) What is the impact of Thinking Maps on the teaching and learning process?

1.8 Research Hypotheses

Ho1 No specific learning styles among PST Module 1 students
Ho2 No specific acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST

Module 1 students.
Ho3 No significant difference in learning styles among PST Module 1 students

according to gender
Ho4 No significant difference about the acceptance level of Thinking Maps

between male and female students
Ho5 No significant difference between acceptance level of Thinking Maps

across learning styles.
Ho6 No relationship between learning styles and level of acceptance of

Thinking Maps

3 
 

1.9 Significance of Study
The results of this study is important to determine the effect of VAK learning styles

on the acceptance level of Thinking Maps in higher institutions of learning because
research is lacking in this area.

2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Learning styles
Gardner (1995) defines that learning style preferences are the manner in which, and

the conditions under which, learners most efficiently and effectively perceive, process,
store, and recall what they are attempting to learn. Lujan & DiCarlo (2006) suggested
students can have a variety of learning style preference, it is unknown if gender
differences in learning style preference exists among the undergraduate students in their
study. Tanner & Allen (2004) state that knowing the students’ learning style preferences
will aid in the development of effective teaching approaches. According to Sarasin
(1999), most learners can be categorized as Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic learners,
collectively known as VAK. The learning style preference is depending on the sensory
modality in which a student prefer to receive and process information. The VAK Learning
Styles Model were first developed by psychologists in the 1920s to classify the most
common ways that people learn.

According to the VAK learning style model, people may have a preference in one of
the three learning ways based on the three main sensory receivers: Visual (V), Auditory
(A) and Kinesthetic (K). Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004) conclude that
student learners are capable of using all of these sensory modes of learning; however,
each individual has a unique preference, or set of preferences, in which one mode is
often dominant learning style. In this research, the preferences of learning style can be
assessed using the VAK questionnaire.

There are many methods available for assessing learning styles, with each method
offering a distinctly different view of learning style preferences. The method used in this
study defines the preference in learning style based on the sensory modality in which a
student prefers to take in new information.

The three major sensory modalities are defined by the neural system that is preferred
when receiving information: visual (V), auditory (A), and kinesthetic (K), collectively
known as VAK. In other words, VAK categorizes student learning based on the sensory
preference of the individual. This classification system was recently expanded by
Fleming (2001) to VRAK to include another category: read-write(R). However in this
study, R, as a mix sensory modality is not assessed under the VAK questionnaire.

According to Bennet (1979), learning style is the way a student prefers to learn.
James and Blank (1993) defined learning style as the complex method in which learners
most efficiently and most effectively perceive process, store and recall what they are
trying to learn. McLoughlin (1999) summarizes the term of learning style as adopting a
typical and distinct mode of learning. In this research the learning style is defined as the
manner and the conditions under which learners most efficiently and effectively perceive,
process, store and recall what they are attempting to learn.

According to Fleming’s (2001) explanation on the VRAK learning style, learners with a
V preference learn best by seeing or observing. The using of drawings, pictures,
diagrams, demonstrations, and etc will best boost the learning and understanding among
learner. Learners that prefer A are best suited to learn by listening to or recording
lectures, discussing material, and talking through material with themselves or others. R-
type learners learn through interactions with textual materials. K-style learners perform
best by using physical experiences: touching, performing an activity, moving, lessons
that emphasize doing, and manipulation of objects. Based on Fleming (2006), learners
with a single learning style preference are referred to as unimodal, whereas others
preferring a variety of styles are known as multimodal.

4 

 

2.2 Thinking Maps
Thinking Maps are mapping maps that innovate thinking or thinking that fosters

innovative thinking skills; cultivate a culture of life-long learning skills in problem–solving
and able to generate creative solutions among students. Thinking Maps started with Dr.
Albert Upton, a professor at Whittier College, California who wrote Design For Thinking,
a theoretical text defining fundamental thinking processes based on semantics, cognitive
psychology and problem-solving. Then, Innovative Sciences, Inc. (ISI) founded by
Charles Adam used Upton’s work to help identify how to improve the thinking and
problem-solving abilities of the workforce. Led by Col. Mike Gilrod, ISI thinking skills
programs were introduced in numerous schools in the United States.

In 1988, Dr. David Hyerle, created Thinking Maps. In 1994, the Innovative Sciences
Inc. became Thinking Maps, Inc. Thousands of schools and districts across the United
States have received in-depth training and follow-up using Thinking Maps. Thinking
Maps are also used internationally such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New
Zealand, Ethiopia and South Africa.

2.3 Research related to learning styles
In the research of Fesol, S. F. A., Salam, S., Osman, M., Bakar, N., & Salim, F.

(2016), among the 184 respondents in 6 different faculties in Malaysian Technical
University, 77% of respondents possessed visualised related learning style (V, VA, VK,
VAK), with 58.15% possessed visual learning style alone. The lowest percentage is
auditory-related learning style (A, AK, AV) 19.15% with 8.15% is auditory only.

Dobson (2010) compared learning style preferences, gender and course
performance. His results showed that there was a relationship between learning styles,
gender and course performance. In this study, Dobson also found that K learning style
students performed significantly worse in the lecture portion of the course compared with
V, R, and A styles. Therefore, Dobson suggested there is a relationship between
learning style with different approaches which affect students’ interest in study and
performance.

Bidabadi and Yamat (2010) did a study on learning style preferences. The results
demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean
scores of male and female students’ learning style preferences.

This finding is similar to Shah, K. Ahmed, J. Shenoy, N. & Srikant N. (2017) research
conducted in two dental colleges in India, with 200 respondents, whereby the results
showed that the gender differences in learning style preferences is of no significance.
Several studies observed also showed a similar outcome which included Bhalli, Khan
and Sattar (2016) study among 77 medical students and Murphy, R. J., Gray, S. A.,
Straja, S. R., & Bogert, M. C. (2004)) study among students’ learning preferences in
Temple University Schools of Dentistry. Both findings showed that the learning style
preferences do not significantly correlate to gender and that the learning styles might be
affected by other aspects.

2.4 Related study about learning styles and Thinking Maps
A study about Thinking Maps and school effectiveness, based on a study of a US

comprehensive school Thinking Maps (www.thinkingfoundation.org), conducted by
school administrators to examine the role of Thinking Maps in transforming teachers’ and
students’ effectiveness in learning, showed that more than 90% of students have a
higher level of acceptance on the use of Thinking Maps in learning and 77% of students
spend their time to engage learning in higher order thinking skills after implementing the
use of Thinking Maps. The researchers used interviews and observation in the study and
found out that, teachers use Thinking Maps to help students visualise and share the
ideas, improve students’ participation in class and motivate learners to learn.

In the study on McKinley Schools (www.thinkingfoundation.org), researchers found
out that teachers need different tools to improve the effectiveness of their instruction.
Teachers undergo training before implementing the Thinking Maps in class. The

5 

 

research found out students’ acceptance level on the use of Thinking Maps and the
effectiveness of Thinking Maps correlated to teacher’s effectiveness in using different
maps during class. Teacher effectiveness in using Thinking Maps resulted in enhancing
students’ academic results in the standardised test. Learning styles, however, does not
significantly affect the effectiveness of using Thinking Maps.

In a survey study carried out by Mohamad Sidek Said, Mohamad Ab Kadir, Mohamad
Sabri Awang Hitam (2014) on respondents from IPG Kampus Sultan Mizan in 2014,
more than 90% hof the respondents showed a positive feedback on using Thinking Maps
and almost 80% have a high acceptance level on the use of Thinking Maps in the
learning process. The students reflected that using Thinking Maps is relevant to the class
activity and improve the skill of organizing.

A study conducted by Firdaus Abdul Fatah, Norlela Ali & Mohd Aminuddin Ab
Rahman (2016) on 73 PPISMP students regarding their perception on using Thinking
Maps, showed that the overall respondents’ acceptance in using Thinking Maps was
high (4.1 over 5.0), however, the overall students who understood the importance in
using Thinking Maps was average (3.2 over 5.0) and the use of Thinking Maps only
occurred during classroom activity.

However, there is a different finding in Sciarra (2016) pilot study among the graduate
nursing students in using visualising map. The researchers noticed that learning style
preferences do not impact significantly on the acceptance level and affinity of students to
use visualised mapping in learning. This result is similar to the finding of Ningrum, A. S.
B., Latief, M. A., & Sulistyo, G. H. (2016) in the TOEFL class, whereby the learning style
preference does not significantly affect the using of visualised map to develop writing
skill.

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research Design
This study employed a qualitative and quantitative research design as the goal of the

study was to explore the acceptance level among students in the implementation of I-
Think program in their lessons. The method used to collect the data was divided into two,
which was by questionnaire distribution and structured interview. Data analysis on the
questionnaires enabled researchers to identify the academic background of respondents,
the precise learning style of students and the acceptance level of students on the
implementation of Thinking Maps.

Analysis of data from structured interviews enabled researchers to get a reflection and
deep understanding on students’ perception on using Thinking Maps in their learning
process. SPSS was used to find answers to the research objectives.

3.2 Population and Sample
Data collection took place in Kedah Matriculation College during the first week of

April 2017. Respondents were PST Module 1 students in Semester 2, Academic Session
2016/2017. Their age group ranged between 18-19 years and they were from the
northern region of Malaysia (Perlis, Kedah and Penang). Based on Kriejcie and Morgan
(1970), a total of 254 PST Module 1 students from a population of 750 were selected
randomly from five lectures to complete the questionnaire survey. Then a stratified
sampling of respondents male to female students with the ratio of 1:2 were selected in
the same proportion as the full proportion of Module 1 students.

3.3 Instrument

3.3.1 The Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps Questionnaire
This questionnaire is framed based on Students’ Acceptance Towards Using

Thinking Maps Scale, which was designed by Shahibudin Ishak (2015). It consists of 10
items about students’ acceptance towards using Thinking Maps ranging from teaching

6 
 

using Thinking Maps in class makes students more eager to learn and succeed in
Module 1 subjects, students love to attend lectures in Module 1 subjects using Thinking
Maps, sometimes the use of Thinking Maps is troublesome to study Module 1 subjects,
each student must know how to use Thinking Maps in their studies, Thinking Maps is
less useful in the learning process, Thinking Maps make learning become fun, easy and
realistic, students can quite master concepts and maps using Thinking Maps, students
like to make notes using Thinking Maps, teaching using Thinking Maps is more efficient
and students easily remember facts in Module 1 subjects with the use of Thinking Maps
in the process of teaching and learning. This questionnaire could be answered within 5-
10 minutes.

Each item is on a 5 point scale ranging from “strongly agree” (point 5) to “strongly
disagree” (point 1). The middle point (point 3) is indifference. The higher a subject scores,
the higher level of acceptance level of Thinking Maps that is shown. The second part of
the questionnaire investigated students’ preferred learning style. Each item is on a 5 point
scale ranging from “almost always” (point 5), “often” (point 4), “sometimes” (point 3),
“rarely” (point 2) and “almost never” (point 1). According to the VAK learning style model,
people may have a preference in one of the three learning ways based on the three main
sensory receivers: Visual (V), Auditory (A) and Kinesthetic (K). The highest score
indicated the student’s preferred learning style.

3.3.2 VAK questionnaire
The VAK questionnaire developed by Barbe, W. B., Milone, M. N., & Swassing, R. H.

(1979) was used to identify the facet of students’ learning styles: the sensory modality by
which students prefer to take in information. The VAK questionnaire contains 36 items,
which could be completed within 15-20 minutes. Each item was on the Likert Scale from
“Strongly agree” (5) to “Strongly disagree” (1). This questionnaire was adopted from the
teacher tools websites and can be accessed at
http://teachertools.londongt.org/?page=VAK.

3.3.3 Structured interview
The structured interviews were conducted to acquire an insight into the respondents’

personal experience and obtain a more complete picture of respondents’ understanding.
It involved five Module 1 students and the structured interviews were conducted over a
period of four days from 3-4 and 16-17 April 2017. The 5 items in the structured interview
was adopted from an interview guide in Shahibudin Ishak’s (2015) study.

The interview questions were prepared in the Malay Language to facilitate students’
understanding. However, students were given the option to answer either in the Malay or
English Language. An interview guide was prepared with all the items listed in it. The
interviewees’ responses were recorded in writing directly on the copy of the interview
guide. The important responses in the form of excerpts were extracted from the interview
guide to represent the findings to the research questions. These were the interview
questions:

1. Apakah kesan program i-Think kepada kamu?

2. Adakah anda menggunakan peta i-Think selain daripada pengajaran dan

pembelajaran kelas? Ulaskan dengan member contoh-contoh aplikasi peta i-Think.
3. Nyatakan beberapa perubahan dalam kelas apabila peta i-Think diaplikasikan

semasa Pdp.

4. Cadangkan beberapa penambahbaikan kepada program i-Think di kolej.

3.4 Data Analysis
To test the hypothesis of the study, all the data collected through the survey forms

was computed by means of Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
22 for Windows. A descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the variables in the
survey form. Frequency and percentages were calculated for the categorical variables

7 

 

like gender and learning styles. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for
quantitative variables like acceptance level of Thinking Maps.

The association between the variable (1) learning style and gender; (2) acceptance
level of Thinking Maps and gender; using the Chi-square test of independent variable. A
p-value of <0.05 was considered significant. While the association between the variable
learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps is determined using Kruskal

Wallis H Test.
The mean score of the acceptance level of Thinking Maps was assigned into three

levels based on Landell (1997):

Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps Mean Score
Low 1.00 – 2.33
2.34 – 3.67
Moderate 3.68 – 5.00
High

Landell (1997)

The relationship between learning style and acceptance level of Thinking Maps is

determined using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. The detail description of the

correlation coefficient’s relative strength is interpreting using Cohen (1988) correlation
coefficients:

Correlation coefficient Relationship strength of the variable
r < േ0.1 None/ trivial
േ0.1൑r < േ0.1 Weak
േ0.1൑r < േ0.1 Moderate
r ൒ േ0.5 Strong

Cohen (1988)

For the analysis of the qualitative data, the interview content was transcripted and the
interviewees’ responses were recorded in writing directly on the copy of the interview
guide. The important responses in the form of excerpts were extracted from the interview
guide to represent the findings to the research questions.

To test the hypothesis of the study, a descriptive analysis was conducted to examine
the demographic data in Part A of the survey form, especially the data on gender which
followed the ratio of male to female ratio of the total population. The frequency of both
female respondents and male respondents was calculated and the chi-square goodness

of fit test run to determine the ratio of male to female in respondent size was acceptable
in 1:2 ratio.

All the data collected through the survey will undergo a series of analysis to determine
the specific learning style of each respondent and the mean score for the acceptance
level of Thinking Maps. The data of this study was computed by means of Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 for window.

The descriptive analysis was carried out to calculate the frequency of different
learning style modality and the mean score in acceptance level of Thinking Maps. The
chi-square test of independent variables were conducted to determine whether there is a
significant association between (1) learning style and gender; and (2) gender and
acceptance level of Thinking Maps. A Spearman rho correlation test was conducted to
determine the relationship between learning styles and acceptance level of Thinking
Maps. A Kruskal–Wallis test by ranks was conducted to determine the association
between acceptance level across learning styles.

3.5 Data Collection
For the questionnaire survey, the questionnaire consisted of three parts, (A)

Demographic details, (B) The Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps questionnaire and (C)
VAK questionnaire, was administered to 280 respondents randomly selected among 750

8 
 

PST Module 1 students. 280 sets of questionnaires were administered to respondents,
with the estimation that 90% of students will complete the entire questionnaire and return
it promptly. Respondents were given a period of two days to complete answering the
questionnaires and return it to the researchers. The data collected through survey will be
analyzed using SPSS version 22. For the structured interviews on the five random
selected students, the interviewees’ responses were recorded in writing directly on the
copy of the interview guide, which enabled researchers to extract the content more
precisely.

3.6 Reliability Test
The reliability test on both questionnaires was carried out and was tested using

Cronbach's  value. From the results of the pilot test, Cronbach's  value for VAK
Questionnaire and the Acceptance Level for Thinking Maps was 0.79 and 0.73

respectively. Based on Creswell (2002), Cronbach’s  value of more than 0.70 shows an
acceptable reliability for the use of a questionnaire.

4.0 Findings

4.1 Demographic Analysis
Descriptive analysis was conducted to test the demographic variable. The

percentages of the gender and ethnicity among the respondents were computed and the
results are as follows:

Table 1: Demographic variable and percentage

Demographic variable Number of Percentage (%)

respondents

Gender 173 65.3
Female

Male 92 34.7

Ethnicity 233 87.9
Bumiputra

Non-bumiputra 32 12.1

  The ratio of male to female in population is 1:2, based on chi-square goodness of fit

test, 2 (df=1, N=265) =.228, p=.668. The p>0.05, the ratio of male to female in
respondents group fit with the 1:2 ratio found in population within 95% confidence level.

Graph 1: The distribution of gender

Distribution of Gender 

Male
35%

Female
65%

9 
 

4.2 VAK Learning Styles

Graph 2: Learning styles among PST Module 1 students

Learning Styles V
A
4% 2% K
8% VA
11% 43% VK
AK
16% VAK
16%
 

Figure 2 shows the percentage of PST Module 1 students who preferred different
learning styles. The highest learning style preference is visual (43%) followed by both
auditory (16%) and kinaesthetic (16%). The data showed they preferred information to
reach them via single sensory modalities (75%) compared to multiple sensory modality
(25%). Most of the students possessed the visual-related learning style (64.5%) that
suggested that most students preferred information to reach them via visualised method
of learning.

Table 2: Distribution of respondents in each specific type of learning style

Learning Style  Number of respondent  Percentages (%) 

V  114  43 

A  42  15.8 

K  42  15.8 

VA  28  10.6 

VK  22  8.3 

AK  10  3.8 

VAK  7  2.6 

Total  265  100 

10 
 

4.3 Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps
Graph 3: The acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST Module 1 students

Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps

4.45%
32.70%

62.85%

Low Moderate High

 

Based on Figure 3.0, 62.85% of PST Module 1 respondents showed a high
acceptance level with the overall mean score 3.68 and above. 32.7% showed a
moderate acceptance level on using Thinking Maps in learning and only 4.45%
respondents have a low acceptance level in using Thinking Maps, with a mean score
less than 2.34.

4.4 VAK Learning Styles across Gender
A chi-square analysis was performed to determine the significance of gender

differences that exist in the learning styles among PST Module 1 students. The findings

showed that 2 (df=6, N=265) =7.642, p=.266. Since the significant, p>0.05, H03 failed to
be rejected. The learning styles between female and male students have no significant
difference.

11 
 

Graph 4: VAK learning styles across gender

VAK Learning Styles across Gender
46.80%
50.00%
45.00% 35.90%
40.00%
35.00% 15.20% 16.20% V
30.00% 20.70% 13.30% A
25.00% 11.60% K
20.00% 8.70% 6.40% VA
15.00% 12.00% 2.90% VK
10.00% 2.90% AK
5.40% VAK
5.00% 2.20%
0.00%

MALE FEMALE
GENDER (PERCENTAGE)

Graph 5: Acceptance level of Thinking Maps Across Gender

Level of Acceptance across Gender

70.00% 65.90%
60.00% 59.80%
50.00%
Percentage 40.00% 35.90%
30.00% 29.50%

20.00% 4.30% 4.60%
10.00%

0.00%

Low Average High

Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps

Gender male Gender female

 

A chi-square analysis was conducted to determine the significance of gender
differences that exist in the acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST Module 1

students. The findings showed that 2 (df=2, N=265) =1.136, p=.567. Since the
significant, p>0.05, H04 failed to be rejected. The acceptance level of using Thinking
Maps between female and male students have no significant difference. Based on the
interview transcripts, both male and female students used Thinking Maps in classroom

12 
 

environment as they believe Thinking Maps are useful and helps them in processing and
organizing information received.

4.5 Learning Styles and Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps
A Kruskal Wallis H Test showed that there was a statistically significant difference in

the acceptance level of Thinking Maps between different learning styles, χ2(2) = 11.978,
p = 0.003. Since significant, p < 0.05, H05 is rejected.

4.6 Relationship between VAK Learning Styles and Acceptance Level of Thinking

Maps
A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between
VAK learning style and the acceptance level of Thinking Maps. There was a weak
correlation between the learning style and acceptance level of Thinking Maps, which was
statistically significant (rs(263) = -.212, p = .001). Since the significant, p < 0.05, H06 is
rejected. The learning style is significantly correlated to acceptance level of Thinking
Maps.

Graph 6: Relationship between VAK learning styles and Acceptance Level of Thinking
Maps

Acceptance Level of Thinking Maps 
according to Learning Styles
86.80%
100.00% 81.80% 85.70%

90.00% 66.70% 67.90%

80.00%

70.00% 38.10% 50.00%
54.80% 40.00%
60.00% 32.10% low
50.00% 14.30% 18.20% Average
40.00% 13.20% 19.00% 0.00% 14.30% High
30.00% 0.00% 0.00%
10.00%
20.00% 7.10% 0.00%

10.00%

0.00%  
V A K VA VK AK VAK

5.0 Conclusion and Suggestions

5.1 To investigate specific learning styles among PST Module 1 students
Based on the findings, the highest learning style preference is visual (43%) followed

by both auditory (16%) and kinaesthetic (16%). Most of the students possessed the
visual-related learning style (64.5%) that suggested that most students preferred
information to reach them via visualised method of learning.

5.2 To investigate the acceptance level of Thinking Maps among PST Module 1

students
62.85% of PST Module 1 respondents showed a high acceptance level with the
overall mean score 3.68 and above.

13 
 

5.3 To investigate the relationship between gender and the acceptance level of
Thinking Maps

There is no significant correlation between gender and the acceptance level of
Thinking Maps as both male and female students use Thinking Maps to pattern
information. This is supported through the interviewees’ responses where both male and
female students believed that Thinking Maps helps them to process and organize
information.

5.4 To investigate the relationship between gender and learning styles
There is no significant relationship between genders and learning styles. Bidabadi and

Yamat (2010) did a study on learning style preferences. The results demonstrated that
there was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of male and
female students’ learning style preferences.

5.5 To investigate the relationship between learning styles and the acceptance

level of Thinking Maps
There is a relationship between learning styles and the acceptance level of Thinking
Maps. In a survey study carried out by Sidek et al (2014) on respondents from IPG
Kampus Sultan Mizan in 2014, more than 90% of the respondents showed a positive
feedback on using Thinking Maps and almost 80% have a high acceptance level on the
use of Thinking Maps in the learning process. The students reflected that using Thinking
Maps is relevant to the class activity and improve the skill of organizing.

5.6 To investigate the relationship between learning styles and the acceptance
level of Thinking Maps

The learning style is significantly correlated to acceptance level of Thinking Maps.
However, in Sciarra (2016), a pilot study among the graduate nursing students in using
visualising map, the researchers noticed that learning style preferences do not impact
significantly on the acceptance level and affinity of students to use visualised mapping in
learning. This result is similar to the finding of Ningrum et al (2016) in the TOEFL class,
whereby the learning style preference does not significantly affect the using of visualised
map to develop writing skill.

5.7 To investigate the impact of the i-Think programme on Module 1 students
All the interviewees stated that the i-Think programme should be widely promoted in

the college. They believe that the i-Think programme is important especially in the
Science and Mathematics subjects because Thinking Maps help students understand
and memorize facts and formulas easier and faster through information patterning

5.8 To investigate the impact of Thinking Maps on the teaching and learning
process

All of the interviewees stated that when lecturers use Thinking Maps in class, it makes
it easier for them to understand the topic because they see the overall picture visually.
Classes become interesting and students find the Thinking Maps useful as reference
notes as it is clearer than lecture notes. Lecturers should motivate and encourage
students to use i-Think maps in the classroom.

5.9 Suggestions
This is the preliminary research on finding the correlation between the learning style

preferences and acceptance level of Thinking Maps. In this study, the results do not
show significant difference in learning style preferences between males and females.

The results of this study offer some suggestions. First, by identifying the students’
preferred learning styles, educators may align their overall curriculum and teaching
materials with the most appropriate and suitable learning styles. This will increase
students’ understanding, motivation and engagement throughout the learning process.

14 
 

Multiple modes should be used by instructors to present information and assess
understanding of students. Overall acceptance level of Thinking Maps is high, thus, it is
suggested that instructors increase the use of visualisation-based learning approaches
to support classroom activities and emphasize on the use of Thinking Maps. However,
adjustment should be done to provide effective instruction and information according to
students’ needs.

Second, as students, it is vital to be self-aware of preferences to adjust study
techniques to best fit each individual, even when the information and instruction provided
does not match the preferred styles.
6.0 Limitation of Study

The results obtained in this study only involved student population from KMK,
therefore, the results cannot be generalised to represent the student population in
Malaysia.

The use of VAK learning style questionnaire may not provide a complete explanation
on students’ preferred learning styles. As suggested in Fleming (2001), students’
learning styles change over time. It is suggested that Fleming’s VRAK model should be
applied in further studies to gain a more accurate learning style preference, especially for
multimodal learning style explanation. A research design based on qualitative methods
should be carried out to study the effectiveness on the application of Thinking Maps in
the learning process.
 

15 
 

REFERENCES

Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia
(2005). Manual Kajian Tindakan. Kuala Lumpur: BPPPDP, KPM.

Barbe, W. B., Milone, M. N., & Swassing, R. H. (1979). Teaching through modality
strenghts: Concepts and practices. Zaner-Bloser.

Bennett, C. (1979). Individual differences and How Teachers Perceive Them. The Social
Studies, 70(2), pp 56-61.

Bhalli, M. A., Khan, I. A., & Sattar, A. (2016). Learning Style Of Medical Students and
Its Correlation With Preferred Teaching Methodologies And Academic
Achievement. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 27(4), 837-842.

Bidabadi, F. SH., &Yamat, H. (2010). Learning Style Preferences By Iranian EFL
Freshman University Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (7),
219-226.

Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. (2004). Learning styles and Pedagogy in
Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Learn Skills Res Centre, pp1–
205.

Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy
Dobson, L. (2010). A Comparison Between Learning Style Preferences and Sex
Status, and Course Performance. Advances in Physiology Education (34) 197-
220.

Fesol, S. F. A., Salam, S., Osman, M., Bakar, N., & Salim, F. (2016). Learning Style
Approaches for Gen Y: An Assessment Conducted in a Malaysian Technical
University. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 24(4).

Firdaus Abdul Fatah, Norlela Ali & Mohd Aminuddin Ab Rahman (2016). Persepsi
Pelajar PPISM Terhadap Peta Pemikiran I-Think. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from
http://www.infokbat.net/site2/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PERSEPSI-PELAJAR-
PPISMP-TERHADAP-PETA-PEMIKIRAN-i.pdf.

Fleming, N. & Baume D. (2006). Learning Styles Again: Varking Up The Right Tree!
Educational Developments, 7(4), 4.

Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching And Learning Styles: VARK Strategies. IGI Global.

Hall, G.E. & Hord, S.M. (2006). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Patholes.
United States of America: Allyn & Bacon

Hyerle. D. (2000). Thinking Maps: Visual Tools For Activating Habits Of Mind. In A. L.
Inquiry-Based Science Education for Fifth-Grade Students. Franklin Pierce
In Post-16 Learning: A Systematic And Critical Review. Learn Skills Res Centre:
1–205.

James W, Gardner D. (1995). Learning Styles: Implications For Distance Learning. New
Dir Adult Contin Educ 67: 19–32.

16 
 

James, W. B., & Blank, W. E. (1993). Review and Critique of Available Learning-Style
Instruments for Adults. Applying Cognitive Learning Styles, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, pp. 47-58.

Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. (2006). First-Year Medical Students Prefer Multiple Learning
Styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30: 13–16.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). The Implications of Research Literature on Learning Styles for
the Design of Instructional Material. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
15(3), pp 222-241.

Muhamad Sidek Said & Ahamad Rahim.(2012).Transformasi Pengajaran Dan
Pembelajaran Inovatif Melalui Thinking Maps‟. Kertas Kerja Dibentangkan Di
Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Antarabangsa Malaysia - Indonesia (Malindo) ,
IPGKIK, Kuala Lumpur, 4 -6 Oktober 2012.

Murphy, R. J., Gray, S. A., Straja, S. R., & Bogert, M. C. (2004). Student learning
preferences and teaching implications. Journal of dental education, 68(8), 859-866.

Ningrum, A. S. B., Latief, M. A., & Sulistyo, G. H. (2016). The Effect of Mind Mapping
on EFL Students' Idea Development in Argumentative Writing across Gender
Differences and Learning Styles. Dinamika Ilmu, 16(1), 149-166.

Sidek, M. S., Kadir, P. M. A., & Hitam, M. S. A. (2014). Penilaian Pelaksanaan
Program I-Think: Satu Pengenalan. Retrieved March 11,2017.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/42580380/kajian_i_think.pdf
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503327717&Signa
ture=vre2dOlbEMdija3e8XKJIs8%2FsKg%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DPENILAIAN_PELAKSANAAN_PROGR
AM_i-THINK.pdf.

Sarasin, Lynne Celli. (1999) Learning Style Perspectives, Impact in the Classroom.
Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Sciarra, E. (2016). The Relationship Between Learning Styles And Affinity For Concept
Mapping Among Graduate Nursing Students. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice, 6(5), 28.

Shah, K. Ahmed, J. Shenoy, N. & Srikant N. (2017). How Different Are Students And
Their Learning Styles? International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 1(3),
212-215.

Shahibudin Ishak (2015). The Impact of Thinking Maps on Enthusiasm, Attitude and
Learning Style: An Action Research Study of Students in Management Course.
Science Journal of Education 3(5), 107-113.

Siew, N. M., & Mapeala, R. (2016). The Effects Of Problem-Based Learning with
Thinking Maps On Fifth Graders' Science Critical Thinking. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 15(5).

Tanner K, Allen D. (2004). Approaches To Biology Teaching And Learning: Learning
Styles And The Problem Of Instructional Selection– Engaging All Students In
Science Courses. Cell Biol Educ 3: 197–201.

17 
 

Thinking Maps, Inc. (2011). Thinking Maps. Retrieved December 29, 2014 from
http://www.thinkingmaps.com.

Visual Auditory Kinaesthetic VAK Questionnaire. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2017,
from http://teachertools.londongt.org/?page=VAK.

Zohar, A. (2004). Elements Of Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge Regarding Instruction
of Higher Order Thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 293-312.

18 
 

19 
 

20