Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 39 no. 9 (2025)

Students’ Learning Preferences and Academic Performance in GE201 Subject: Basis for Instructional Materials Development

Joyce Enano | Mary Grace Gallego

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Students in government schools in Arunachal Pradesh find studying history more challenging due to lengthy books and struggling with tests and exams. Philippine history is vital in understanding societal issues, but is often neglected, impacting students' grades. As supported by existing research, learning preferences such as auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile affect academic outcomes. This study explores the relationship between learning preferences and academic performance. The respondents were freshmen college students enrolled in RMMC-MI's Readings in Philippine History subject for the academic year 2024-2025. The first group uses old IMs as the baseline, while the second serves as an experiment using newly developed instructional material. Each group consisted of two hundred, seventy-nine (279). The study utilized a research and development (R&D) method combined with a quasi-experimental research design. The study developed instructional Material tailored to learning preferences, which instructors and department heads evaluated for content, organization, mechanics, and overall package. Results revealed a significant positive relationship between learning preferences and academic performance. Students with auditory preferences initially performed well, with a mean grade of 89. After using newly developed instructional Material, grades improved for all learning styles, with the overall mean increasing from 87 to 91. The instructional Material received high ratings from instructors. The study concludes that instructional materials designed for specific preferences enhance students' academic outcomes. Recommendations include diversifying materials for inclusivity and conducting follow-up studies to evaluate long-term impacts. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring educational resources to individual learning styles for broader academic success.



References:

  1. Alghasham, A. A. (2018). Aligning instructional strategies with students’ learning preferences to enhance academic performance.
  2. Alic, A. K. B., & Bual, J. M. (2021). Readings in Philippine history: Course review, best practices, and challenges among higher education institutions. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(4), 91-103. https://www.philssj.org/index.php/main/article/view/424
  3. Anderson, T. (2015). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.
  4. Aragon, R. M., & Balingit, A. B. (2019). The role of instructional materials in enhancing student learning. [Publisher].
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  6. Barnard-Brak, L., Lan, W. Y., & Paton, V. O. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61-80.
  7. Briones, L. M. (2018). Clarity of instructional language and its impact on student understanding. Manila: Academic Publishing House.
  8. Brown, J. A. (2017). The critical role of high-quality instructional materials in effective teaching and learning. [Publisher].
  9. Brown, S. (2015). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge.
  10. Bulanadi, G. (2017). Perception and performance in philippine history: a study among college freshmen. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 23–31.
  11. Candelaria, J. L., & Alporha, V. (2018). Readings in Philippine history. Rex Bookstore, Inc.
  12. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Wiley.
  13. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
  14. Cohen, R.J., Swerdlik, M.E., & Sturman, E.D. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. McGraw-Hill Education.
  15. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). (2013). CHED Memorandum Order No. 20, Series of 2013: General Education Curriculum: Holistic Understandings, Intellectual and Civic Competencies. CHED.
  16. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
  19. Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308-333.
  20. Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
  21. Dobson, J. L. (2010). A comparison between learning style preferences and sex, status, and course performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 34(4), 197-204.
  22. Doharey, R. K., Verma, A., & Verma, K. (2023). Education: Meaning, definition & types.
  23. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Dung, T. H., & Florea, A. (2012). Learning preferences as a complex process. https://doi.org/ [DOI]
  25. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston Publishing Company.
  26. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
  27. Fleming, N. D. (1995). I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In A. Zelmer (Ed.), Research and development in higher education (Vol. 18, pp. 308-313). HERDSA.
  28. Fleming, N. D., & Baume, D. (2006). Learning styles again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, 7(4), 4–7.
  29. Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11(1), 137–155.
  30. Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  31. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  32. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
  33. Fry, E. (2018). Clear teaching: with direct instruction. In M. Adams & D. Engelmann (Eds.), The Science of Learning. Routledge.
  34. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  35. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., & Golas, K. C. (2012). Principles of instructional design. Cengage Learning.
  36. Garcia, M. L. (2020). Promoting awareness of culture and national heritage through education. [Publisher].
  37. Gardner, H. (1963). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
  38. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
  39. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  40. Ghaedi, G., & Jam, D. G. (2014). The relationship between learning styles and academic performance of students in English for academic purposes courses. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 3(2), 93–100.
  41. Gokalp, M. (2013). How students employ a unique approach to learning: Insights and strategies.
  42. Google. (2024). Koronadal City, South Cotabato Map. Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps
  43. Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2011). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 454–478.
  44. Huang, R. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of online learning tools in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(4), 75-88.
  45. Ishartono, N., Faiziyah, N., Sutarni, S., Amalia, P., Fatmasari, L. W. S., Sayuti, M., Rahmaniati, R., & Yunus, M. M. (2021). Visual, auditory, and kinesthetic students: How they solve PISA-oriented mathematics problems? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1720(1), 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1720/1/012012
  46. James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1995(67), 19–32.
  47. Jones, M. L. (2016). Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics perspective. The Information Society, 32(5), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1216458
  48. Khalid, S. (2016). The influence of auditory learning styles on student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 201-209.
  49. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
  50. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
  51. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47-52.
  52. Koronadal City Government. (2024). Koronadal City profile. Koronadal City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koronadal
  53. Lewens, T. (2017). Human nature, human culture: The case of cultural evolution. Interface Focus, 7(5), 20170018. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0018
  54. Lohr, L. (2014). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy. Pearson.
  55. Martinez, C. D., & Lopez, R. M. (2021). Academic performance and its influencing factors among high school students.
  56. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
  57. Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press.
  58. Moeinikia, M., & Zahed-Babelan, A. (2010). A study of simple and multiple relations between learning styles, academic achievement, and academic motivation of the students in Islamic Azad University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2926–2929.
  59. Nair, M. (2024, February 28). Why is history important and how can it benefit your future? University of the People. https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/why-is-history-important/
  60. Ocampo, A. (2020). Teaching Philippine history in the 21st century classroom. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 15(2), 45–58.
  61. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
  62. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  63. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (9th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
  64. Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Laramie: University of Wyoming, Department of English.
  65. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
  66. Reigeluth, C. M. (2017). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.
  67. Rini, D. S., Adisyahputra, & Sigit, D. V. (2020). Boosting student critical thinking ability through project-based learning, motivation, and visual, auditory, kinesthetic learning style: A study on ecosystem topic. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081806
  68. Robinson, B., Vasko, S. E., Gonnerman, C., Christen, M., O’Rourke, M., Steel, D., & Fosl, P. S. (2016). Human values and the value of humanities in interdisciplinary research. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2015.1123080
  69. Rohner, C., & Pashler, H. (2012). Relationship between learning styles and academic performance: No significant evidence. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.604395
  70. Romiszowski, A. J. (2016). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. Routledge.
  71. Santos, M. L. (2022). Curricular innovations in history education during the pandemic. Philippine Journal of Education, 98(1), 112–125.
  72. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 48(5), 71-82.
  73. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
  74. Thomas, L. (2020). Simple random sampling | Definition, steps & examples.
  75. Tok, B. (2016). Learning problems in history subject among the secondary school students of Papum-pare district of Arunachal Pradesh. IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(2), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.21013/jems.v5.n2.p9
  76. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. ASCD.
  77. Walkenbach, J. (2015). Excel 2016 Bible. Wiley.
  78. Williams, R., Brown, T., & Etherington, J. (2013). Learning style preferences of occupational therapy students: A comparison of undergraduate and postgraduate students. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76(2), 83–90. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802213X13603244419345
  79. Wilson, T. R. (2019). Factors influencing academic performance among students: A comprehensive review.
  80. Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Liu, J., & Chen, H. (2020). The impact of learning preferences on academic success in blended learning environments.
  81. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1-12). New York: Routledge.

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic