REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 493–510, December 2022 A CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS: LEARNING PREFERENCES AND SENSORY-SPECIFIC ENGLISH LEARNING MATERIAL STIMULI Potrjeno/Accepted . . 10. 8. 2022 Objavljeno/Published 5. 12. 2022 YI-SHAN SHI 1 & CHIH-YUNG TSAI 1 University of Taipei, Taipei City, Taiwan CORRESPONDING AUTHOR/KORESPONDENČNI AVTOR cytsai@utaipei.edu.tw Keywords: sensory-specific English learning material stimuli; sensory learning preferences; the canonical correlation analysis; adaptive learning material stimuli; auditory learning preference Ključne besede: Senzorično specifični dražjaji učne snovi angleščine, Kanonično-korelacijska analiza, prilagoditveni dražljaji učne snovi, preferenca slušnega učenja fonološko zavedanje, začetni/končni glas, branje besed, vrtec, 1. ra UDK/UDC: 37.091.33:811.111 Abstract/Izvleček The study investigated the relationship between sensory- specific English learning material stimuli and sensory learning preferences. The study involved 53 English as a foreign language participants. Participants were provided with different sensory-specific English learning material stimuli to analyse their overall comprehension. A canonical correlation analysis was used to analyse the collected data statistically. Auditory learning preference was significantly related to adaptive English learning stimuli (paper texts with sound, images with captions, and sound with images). The canonical correlation coefficient of .665 indicated 44.2% of the variance in English learning was determined by learners with auditory learning preferences and adaptive learning materials. Kanonično-korelacijska analiza: učne preference in senzorično specifični dražljaji učne snovi angleščine Študija je preučevala razmerje med senzorično specifičnimi dražljaji učnega gradiva za angleščino in senzoričnimi učnimi preferencami. Vključevala je 53 udeležencev angleščine kot tujega jezika, ki so prejeli različne senzorično specifične dražljaje učnega gradiva za angleščino, da bi analizirali njihovo splošno razumevanje. Za statistično analizo zbranih podatkov je bila uporabljena kanonično-korelacijska analiza. Preferenca slušnega učenja je bila pomembno povezana s prilagodljivimi dražljaji za učenje angleščine (besedila na papirju z zvokom, slike z napisi in zvok s slikami). Kanonični korelacijski koeficient 0,665 je pokazal, da so 44,2 % variance pri učenju angleščine določili učenci s slušnimi učnimi preferencami in prilagodljivimi učnimi gradivi. DOI https://doi.org/10.18690/rei.15.4.493-510.2022 Besedilo / Text © 2022 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco Creative Commons CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. Uporabnikom je dovoljeno tako nekomercialno kot tudi komercialno reproduciranje, distribuiranje, dajanje v najem, javna priobčitev in predelava avtorskega dela, pod pogojem, da navedejo avtorja izvirnega dela. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 494 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Introduction Sensory learning preferences differ for each student (Aslaksen and Lorås, 2018; Rogowsky et al., 2015; Hayashi and Cherry, 2004; Reid, 1987), most often with different ways of perceiving, thinking, memorizing, and solving problems (Shepard- Carey, 2020; Golon, 2017; Keefe, 1987; Messick, 1976; Allport, 1973). Students are directly exposed to these stimuli in EFL materials, which are crucial for optimizing learning (Tomlinson 2008; Kozhevnikov 2007). Language learning is also an individualized, complex process. Different individuals perceive and respond to learning materials differently (Chen, 2019; Hsu, 2016; Lee, Yeung and Ip, 2016; Hedayati and Foomani, 2015). Hence, studying sensory preferences and sensory- specific stimuli could improve the learning of English. Peacock (2001) and Luchow and Shepherd (1981) concluded that non-visual sensory modalities applied to visually related tasks do not enhance learning. Since the learning aim is to be completed visually, other sensory modalities might interfere with the meshing hypothesis. Studies have also shown that if stimuli match learners’ learning preferences, students can learn more effectively (Montero Perez, Peters, and Desmet, 2018; Keefe, 1991). The meshing hypothesis suggests adapting learning stimuli to learner preferences. Therefore, previous studies should be examined further. Research is needed to determine whether sensory-specific learning materials foster learners with different sensory preferences. To provide suitable language learning material stimulation, teachers must first understand their learners’ learning preferences (Cohen, 2003). Once teachers are aware of students’ learning preferences, they can adapt their pedagogy and themselves to best suit the learning styles of their students (Gilbert, 2000). To cater to student learning differences, teachers should also consider individual learning differences when planning and designing their lessons, according to Fenrich (2006). Chen (2009), and Rezler and Rezmovic (1981) argued that Taiwan senior high schools ignore or omit these types of preliminary learning preferences among students. In light of this, the authors suggest that considering the relationship between sensory-specific language learning material stimuli, personal sensory learning preferences, and their impact on learning outcomes, language learners can improve students’ English comprehension. Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 495 The correlation between personal preferences and stimuli used in learning materials remains unresolved. The learning process must be facilitated by both learning materials and pedagogical methods, as suggested by Rao (2011). Learning can be facilitated to enhance learners’ comprehension. As a result of the findings, sensory- specific materials were emphasized as an important tool for bridging the learning gap between expectations and reality. This study aimed to identify the relationship between sensory-specific learning materials and learner preferences in the learning of English. Using English language learning materials, the study investigated how sensory stimulation affects learning preferences. Literature review Humans’ sensory perceptual learning modality Since people are innately able to perceive things, we learn, get to know, and experience things primarily through our senses (Barth et al., 2012). In sensory perception, stimuli from the living world are recognized, organized, and interpreted in a variety of ways. Humans can perceive virtually every sense through their senses, Conscious awareness is present in some senses, while subconscious awareness is present in others, including visual, auditory, tactile, kinaesthetic, olfactory, taste, proprioception, and vestibular senses. It is through these that humans explore the world and discover its challenges and opportunities (Keefe, 1987). To explain the concept that learners have differentiated learning preferences, Keffe (1979) classes each learner’s learning style into three different categories and conceptualizes the individual styles into cognitive, affective, physiological, and physical perspectives. Cognitive learning focuses on how learners perceive the world. There appears to be a correlation between how learners perceive and process information and how they will process it. Affective perspectives emphasize how learners feel while they are learning, while physiological and physical perspectives emphasize how students respond to stimuli. Contrary to this, Cronbach and Snow (1977) proposed Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI), indicating that when the educational materials are delivered to the student, teaching strategies can compensate for the learning results that are induced by individual differences (Thang, Nambiar, Wong, Jaafar, and Amir, 2015). 496 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION According to significant research, primates are capable of learning, especially through sensory integrations, since the Anterior Rhinal Cortex regulates multiple functions of this region (Goulet and Murray, 2001; Murray and Mishkin, 1985). DCT (Dual Coding Theory) of Paivio (1986) and Baddeley's (1998) working memory theory explain how humans incorporate, understand, process, store, extract, and use stimuli. In both theories, the mind of a human is defined clearly. Visual aids appear to play a significant role in learning, so they are used to integrate text and images into learning materials, ensuring student learning outcomes are promoted by how learning materials are presented and how they interact with student learning. Based on DCT theory, learning is not only about texts, but also how they are delivered to accommodate learners’ individual needs and, above all, to induce positive outcomes. Effects of sensory-specific learning material stimuli on learners with different sensory learning preferences Learners perceive learning stimuli differently (Ehrman and Leaver, 2003; Oxford, 1993; Riding and Cheema, 1991; Felder and Silverman, 1988; Keefe, 1987; Messick, 1976; Allport, 1937). In the literature review, learning style, learning preference, or cognitive style were terms used by many researchers (Hederich-Martínez and Camargo-Uribe, 2016; Ehrman and Leaver, 2003; Littlemore, 2001; Merriam and Caffarella; 1999; Riding and Agrell, 1997; Tinajero and Páramo, 1997; Kinsella, 1996; Reid, 1984; Oxford, 1993; Jamieson, 1992; Riding and Cheema, 1991; Oxford, 1990). Learning styles have not been sufficiently verified. Throughout this article, the term “learning preference” is used in reference to Reid (1984). Cronbach and Snow (1977) proposed Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (ATI) theory, claiming that when learning aptitude and teaching instruction are matched, optimal learning results will be generated (Pashler et al., 2008). Hence, learning stimuli should match learners’ preferred learning styles. Such a match between learning stimuli and learning styles might increase students’ chances of learning (Ferrero et al., 2016; Gleichgerrcht et al., 2015; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014; Howard-Jones, 2014; Dekker et al., 2012; Tabatabaei and Mashayekhi, 2012; Gilakjani, 2012; Riener and Willingham, 2010; Mulalic, Shah and Ahmad, 2009; Wintergerst, DeCapua and Verna, 2003). Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 497 The meshing hypothesis theory has been supported without any concrete evidence by several studies (Chew, 2016; Willingham et al., 2015; Pashler et al., 2008; Kozhevnikov, 2007; Coffield et al., 2004; Calvert et al., 2000). Bicer (2014) also found no statistically significant correlation between learning achievement and learning style preferences. Wright and Zhang (2009) also wrote a review regarding how public speaking training stimulates generalization of speech patterns. Considering that different training tasks have different effects on generalization, there is no simple way to predict a given task’s generalisation pattern since there is no simple rule that can be used. Based on what has been discussed above, different sensory stimuli should be considered for individuals with various learning styles. Since there are many types of learning styles, it is impossible to consider every single one, and it is highly unlikely that learning preferences will be remembered for each individual. It is undeniable that understanding learners’ learning styles enhances classroom experience (Hames and Baker, 2015), but it is impossible to solve all the problems associated with learning foreign languages. Studies conducted by Constantinidou and Baker (2002), Massa and Mayer (2007), Cook, Thompson, Thomas, and Thomas (2009) also claim that learning outcomes were not affected by differences in material stimuli. As with Massa and Mayer (2006), the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ) experiment in this study confirmed the findings that there was insufficient evidence of significant differences between learners’ learning abilities, regardless of learning style. According to the researchers, the findings of the study did not support the meshing hypothesis that better learning outcomes can be achieved through providing learning materials that correspond to students' learning preferences. However, the results contradict the meshing hypothesis; thus, the performance of the participants needs to be discussed further. A study by Fahim and Samadian (2011) concludes that experienced learners are much more flexible when it comes to sensory perception, while inexperienced learners tend to be the opposite. There has been insufficient discussion about sensory preference, so more empirical studies are required to clarify its effects Purpose of the study A canonical correlation analysis was used to investigate to what extent sensory English learning materials might influence the performance of EFL learners. Learners’ learning preferences and sensory stimuli in learning materials have not been conclusively linked. 498 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION To gain a better understanding of how learning preferences affect English learning materials, this empirical study investigated the relationship between visual input (paper texts; images with captions), visual and auditory input (paper texts with sound; images with captions and sound; sound with images) and auditory input (sound), with the following research questions: (1) What is the canonical correlation between learning preferences and sensory-specific English learning material stimuli? (2) Is the meshing hypothesis supported or rejected by the findings? Research methodology Experimental design and procedure It was a quasi-experimental design. Figure 1, Research Procedure, shows that the experiment lasted six weeks. Each week, different English learning material stimuli were provided to participants. Paper texts (visual stimuli) were used in the first week. The second week included paper texts with sound (a combination of visual and auditory stimuli). Week 3 used images with captions (visual stimuli), while week 4 used images with captions and sound (visual and auditory stimuli). The study involved the administration of sounds (auditory stimuli) and sounds with images (visual and auditory stimuli) during weeks 5 and 6. Following individual sensory- specific stimuli, each participant took about 20-30 minutes to assess their understanding of the English learning material. The students had to answer multiple- choice questions about sensory-specific stimuli as part of each English comprehension test. Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 499 Figure 1. Research procedure Participants There were 53 participants in this study, 36 females and 17 males, who were vocational high school English majors in Northern Taiwan, aged 16-17. Six sensory- specific learning exercises guided them to engage and then answer multiple-choice questions related to the stimuli. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire to determine their learning preferences. They were not informed of their learning preferences before the experiment, and neither were the researchers. The 53 participants in the quasi-experiment were classified as having four learning preferences: 8 visual learners, 27 auditory learners, 15 haptic learners and 3 kinaesthetic learners. It is also possible for someone’s learning preferences to change over time (Reid, 1987). Student learning preferences were assessed using a self-report questionnaire. It is, however, important to note that the learning preference of an individual is relative rather than absolute. Therefore, canonical correlation analysis was used. Based on the canonical coefficients, auditory learners and adaptive learning material stimuli demonstrated a significant relationship in learning preferences. Therefore, the present study provided an in-depth description of auditory learners. The rest did not show a significant relationship after the intervention. 500 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Analytical methods A canonical correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between sensory- specific English learning materials and learners’ learning preferences. To better understand their relationship, the absolute values of the canonical loadings of the ranked variables were also calculated. Data collection - Sensory-specific English learning material stimuli design Sensory-specific English learning material was selected based on three criteria. First, learners need to identify the kinds of English learning material they are interested in, as well as select words appropriate to their word proficiency level. To avoid potential cognitive overload, participants should not be provided with material that is too long or difficult. Thirdly, it was essential that the materials be presented visually (paper texts; images with captions), visually and auditorily (paper texts with sound; images with captions and sound; sound with images) and auditorily (sound). We chose a series of American clips online. During a Taiwanese family’s two years in the US, these American clips discuss culture shock. Because the main characters are also Taiwanese, this creates a connection with the learners, allowing for a discussion of cultural differences. Based on these criteria, the authors selected sensory-specific learning material stimuli. English comprehension assessment The English learning comprehension questions were administered following each sensory-specific stimulus activity to assess a participant’s understanding related to the stimuli. A total of eight multiple-choice comprehension questions were used in each experiment regarding the sense-specific English learning material (see Appendix A for samples of multiple-choice comprehension questions in the experiment). Example 1: Samples of multiple choice comprehension questions in the experiment Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 501 One point was awarded for each multiple-choice comprehension question, so there would be an overall score of eight points for each stimulus test. The authors developed eight English comprehension tests for each learning series. Additionally, the test items were verified by experienced English teachers and professors with expertise in education and over ten years of teaching experience. For each item to bear the same level of difficulty during the English comprehension assessments, the difficulty index of each item was calculated statistically prior to the experiment to achieve consistent item discrimination. It was decided to omit those test items that were inappropriate for the test. In general, the difficulty index (DIF I) is 0.67 while the discrimination index (DI) is 0.46. To make the statistical analysis comparable, the scores were added, counted, and normalised so that they could be compared. Taking the example of a participant who received four points on one sensory-specific learning activity and five in another, the participant would get 56.25 normalised scores as a result of both learning activities. A canonical correlation analysis was then performed on the scores to determine the correlation between the two (sensory-specific learning material stimuli and learning preference). Self-report learning preference questionnaire Adapted self-report questionnaires were administered after treatment to answer the second research question. To assess participants’ learning preferences, a Likert Scale questionnaire (strongly agree = 5 points, agree = 4 points, undecided = 3 points, d i s a g r e e = 2 p o i n t s a n d s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e = 1 p o i n t ) a n d a T r u e -or-False questionnaire were provided. A learning preference question that scored high was classified as indicating a preference for that type of learning. There exist cultural differences among different countries (Joy and Kolb, 2009). Reid (1984) was used as a reference for the development of the self-report learning preference questionnaire according to cultural differences. For example, Asian students tend to be introverted, making it difficult to learn more about them. To facilitate their expression, the questionnaire was translated into their native language. A final step involved summarizing results from research questions one and two in order to support or reject the meshing hypothesis. The scores on the adapted learning preference questionnaire were also normalised to determine the specific sensory preferences of learners. Learning preferences change over time, since they are not fixed (Reid, 1987). 502 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Learning preferences, however, are not necessarily absolute since each individual does not belong to the same category of learning preferences. Experimental results (1) What is the canonical correlation between learning preferences and sensory-specific English learning material stimuli? Table 1 shows that the canonical factor accounting for learning preferences (χ1) explained 44.2% of the total variance (η1), the canonical factor explaining sensory- specific English learning material stimuli (ρ2=.442), and η1 explaining 8.469% of the variance in sensory-specific English learning material stimuli. There was a 44.2% overlap between learning preferences and sensory-specific English learning material stimuli: i.e., assessing the canonical factors (χ1 and η1) alongside the four learning preferences subscales revealed that the four subscales of learning preferences accounted for 8.469% of the total variance in the six domains of sensory-specific English learning material stimuli. It appears that the pair of canonical coefficients demonstrate an important relationship between auditory learners (χ1=.947) and adaptive learning material stimuli in the learning preferences: that is, paper texts with sound (η1=.468), images with captions (η1=.568), and sound with images (η1=.496). These factors suggest that a significant relationship exists between these stimuli. Adaptive English learning material stimuli result in positive structural coefficients, which indicate students with auditory preference had better learning outcomes. For the rest, no significant relationship was observed after the intervention: visual learners (χ1=-.529), haptic learners (χ1=-.114) and kinaesthetic learners (χ1=-.482). Table 1. Canonical correlation of learning styles and adaptive learning materials s X variables Canonical variables Y variables Canonical variables χ1 η1 visual learners -0.529 paper texts 0.071 auditory learners 0.947 paper texts with sound 0.468 haptic learners -0.114 images with captions 0.568 kinesthetic learners -0.482 images with captions and sound -0.512 sound -0.447 sound with images 0.496 percent variance dependent 21.944 percent variance dependent 8.469 ρ 2 0.442 Canonical correlation 0.665* *p<.05 Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 503 (2) Is the meshing hypothesis supported or rejected by the findings? Figure 2 gives the ranked variables from the canonical solution as well as the absolute value of their canonical loadings in the canonical solution. According to statistical analysis of the results, auditory learners did not outperform when exposed to corresponding auditory sound stimuli. Contrary to what was expected, they did a better job when using visual aids. Thus, the present study has rejected the meshing hypothesis by demonstrating that an individual’s preferred learning preference does not necessarily help predict their performance under the influence of their preferred sensory-specific stimuli. Rather than disadvantaging students who have different preferences when it comes to learning English, there is a need for them to have a choice of multiple materials that can help them meet their learning needs. Figure 2. The ranked variables in the canonical solution and absolute value of their canonical loadings Discussion In this study, learners with specific learning preferences did not necessarily perform better with sensory learning materials (Krätzig and Arbuthnott, 2006). In the present study, auditory learners had greater success with visual aids. 504 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION According to the findings of the current study, the answer to the first research question was that sound (η1=-.447) did not promote learning outcomes for auditory learners based on these outcomes. Instead, auditory learners benefit from scaffolding materials presented visually. This may be a result of auditory learners paying more attention to sensory-specific English learning material stimuli with which they are less familiar. This study also found that images with captions and sound had a negative canonical correlation with auditory learners. A high cognitive load might impede auditory learners’ ability to learn effectively. There were also minor explanations for auditory preference learners in paper texts (η1=.071). Sensory preferences still play a significant role in the development of an individual learner. Lastly, sensory-specific English learning material stimuli were negatively correlated with canonical correlations. Based on these findings, it can be deduced that auditory learners may be most influenced by sensory-specific stimuli associated with English learning materials. Regarding the answer to the second research question, the results showed that this was quite the opposite of what was predicted by the meshing hypothesis: learners do not necessarily perform better when they are under the influence of the corresponding learning material stimuli. Conclusions and future work According to previous research, it is commonly believed that learning preference determines learning performance. The meshing hypothesis holds that successful learning would occur under sensory-specific stimuli (Dobson, 2009; Reid, 1995; Gilley and French, 1976). However the results of various studies indicate that learners’ performance differs between stimuli when exposed to different sensory modalities (Mahdjoubi and Akplotsyi, 2012). Moreover, learning preferences are also subject to change over time (Reid, 1987). Learners’ preferences for learning affect their autonomy as individuals (Khojastenejad and Pishkar, 2015). Consequently, learning preferences remain an issue in language learning settings. Additionally, learning a foreign language may be affected by multiple variables, such as the impact of digital technology stimuli on cognitive load (Martin, 2012), and the relationship between learning preference and retention (Armstrong et al., 2021). Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 505 The present study aimed to identify how sensory-specific English learning material stimuli affected learners’ performance and to test the hypothesis that meshing motivates learners to improve their performance. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a wide range of individual learners is essential for language instructors to recognize and better understand learners (Ortega et al., 2018; Tuan, 2011). Being flexible in pedagogy does assist learners in developing the ability to deal with different learning stimuli. However, learning preferences are not a panacea. As reminders and tools, they serve to clarify how learning outcomes are assessed (Armstrong, 2000). Additionally, since learners have different learning preferences, the way learning materials are presented matters greatly; therefore, it is crucial to consider the learning preferences of each learner during the design phase of teaching materials since students differ in the way they learn and think in different circumstances (Pashler et al., 2008; Sternberg et al., 2008). In this study, the results showed that auditory learners learned best under adaptive English learning material stimuli, likely because they were more prudent when using visual aids, with which they were not proficient, but which compensated for their poor proficiency. It is possible to predict which pedagogy will produce the best results when teachers understand their learners’ learning preferences (Hames and Baker, 2015; Omrod, 2008; Pashler et al., 2008).It is strongly advised to be cautious when dealing with learners’ individual learning preferences and to handle them with respect. It was considered inappropriate in the current study to label learners according to their learning preferences. To encourage greater retention, instructors should provide learners with a variety of learning material stimuli. Using sensory-specific English learning material stimuli does not necessarily lead to greater proficiency in language skills among learners with corresponding learning preferences, according to the present study. When teaching learners with different learning preferences, it is recommended to be open minded. To accommodate learners with very different learning characteristics, teachers should provide a variety of stimulus designs instead of emphasizing an individual’s preferences. Therefore, English learning material design could support learners in learning English if viewed from multiple perspectives.Only 53 participants were recruited because of constraints on time, space, and manpower. Given the small number of participants, it was not possible to generalize the findings. The gender difference must also be examined to see if any significant differences exist. 506 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION To obtain further empirical conclusions, a larger sample size and a variety of nationalities should be included. It is recommended that the experiment be extended to further analyse how different types of sensory stimuli affect different types of learners with distinct learning preferences. Furthermore, Taiwanese classes generally consist of a mix of students with varying levels of proficiency. In fact, structured pedagogy does have a great impact on students with low proficiency. However, highly proficient individuals may experience quite the opposite (Freebody and Tirre, 1985). In the future, researchers could also consider the learners’ various proficiency levels. When designing a study, it is also important to consider a learner with a different cultural background who has specific characteristics. The findings of this study are in line with those of a previous study that did not endorse the meshing hypothesis (Rogowsky et al., 2015). References Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt and Company Armstrong, S. J. (2000). The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 323–339. Armstrong, V. O., Tudor, T. R., and Hughes, G. D. (2021). Course retention in community colleges: Demographics, motivation, learning style, and locus of control. American Journal of Distance Education, 35(1), 32–47. Aslaksen, K., and Lorås, H. (2018). The modality-specific learning style hypothesis: A mini-review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1538. Baddeley, A. (1998). Human Memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Barth, F. G., Giampieri-Deutsch, P., and Klein, H. D. (2012). Sensory Perception: Mind and matter: Springer Science & Business Media. Biçer, D. (2014). The effect of students’ and instructors’ learning styles on achievement of foreign language preparatory school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 382–386. Calvert, G. A., Campbell, R., and Brammer, M. J. (2000). Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging of crossmodal binding in the human heteromodal cortex. Current Biology, 10(11), 649–657. Chen, C. J. (2019). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Differences between visual style and verbal style learners in learning English. (Information Resources Management Association) (pp. 1894–1908). IGI Global. Chen, M.-L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 304–308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.004 Chew, K. S. (2016). Tailoring teaching instructions according to student’s different learning styles: Are we hitting the right button? Education in Medicine Journal, 8(3), 103–107. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., and Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A systematic and critical review: Learning and Skills Research Centre London. Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL, 41(4), 279–292. Constantinidou, F., and Baker, S. (2002). Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language, 82, 296–311. Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 507 Cook, D. A., Thompson, W. G., Thomas, K. G., and Thomas, M. R. (2009). Lack of interaction between sensing-intuitive learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: A randomized crossover trial. Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 79-90. Cronbach, L. J., and Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A handbook for research on interactions: New York: Irvington Publishers. Dandy, K. L., and Bendersky, K. (2014). Student and faculty beliefs about learning in higher education: implications for teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 358-380. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., and Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(429). Dobson, J. L. (2009). Learning style preferences and course performance in an undergraduate physiology class. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(4), 308–314. Ehrman, M., and Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System, 31 (3), 393–415. Fahim, M., and Samadian, T. (2011). Sensory style preferenc e of EFL students in Iran. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 644–665. Fenrich, P. (2006). Getting practical with learning styles in “Live” and computer-based training settings. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 3, 323–342. Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., and Vadillo, M. A. (2016). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence among Spanish teachers and an exploration of cross-cultural variation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(496). Freebody, P., and Tirre, W.C. (1985). Achievement outcomes of two reading programmes: An instance of aptitude–treatment interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 53–60. Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Visual, auditory, kinaesthetic learning styles and their impacts on English language teaching. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 104–113. Gilbert, S.W. (2000). A widening gap: The support service crisis. Syllabus, 14(1), 18–57. Gilley, D. V., and French, R. L. (1976). Personal Learning Styles: Exploring the Individual’s Sensory Input Processes. Gleichgerrcht, E., Lira Luttges, B., Salvarezza, F., and Campos, A. L. (2015). Educational neuromyths among teachers in Latin America. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 170–178. Golon, A. S. (2017). Visual-spatial Learners: Differentiation strategies for creating a successful classroom. Sourcebooks, Inc. Goulet, S., and Murray, E. A. (2001). Neural substrates of crossmodal association memory in monkeys: the amygdala versus the anterior rhinal cortex. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115(2), 271. Hames, E., and Baker, M. (2015). A study of the relationship between learning styles and cognitive abilities in engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 40(2), 167–185. Hayashi, M., and Cherry, D. (2004). Japanese students’ learning style preferences in the EFL classroom. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 28, 83–93. Hedayati, M., and Foomani, E. M. (2015). Learning style and task performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication: A case study of Iranian EFL learners. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 344–356. Hederich-Martínez, C., and Camargo-Uribe, A. (2016). Cognitive style and educational performance. The case of public schools in Bogotá, Colombia. Educational Psychology, 36(4), 719–737. Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817. Hsu, L. (2016). An empirical examination of EFL learners’ perceptual learning styles and acceptance of ASR-based computer-assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 881–900. Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field independence/dependence and ESL success. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 491–501. 508 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Joy, S., and Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 69–85. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. NASSP’s Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning Style Theory and Practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Keefe, J. W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Khojastenejad, Z., and Pishkar, K. (2015). The Relationship between Iranian EFL Learners’ Sensory Learning Style and Their Autonomy Level. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(6), 179–189. Kinsella, K. (1996). Designing group work that supports and enhances diverse classroom work styles. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 24–30. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464–481. Krätzig, G. P., and Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238. Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., and Ip, T. (2016). Use of computer technology for English language learning: do learning styles, gender, and age matter? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1035–1051. Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459–491. Luchow, J. P., and Shepherd, M. J. (1981). Effects of multisensory training in perceptual learning. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(1), 38–43. Mahdjoubi, L., and Akplotsyi, R. (2012). The impact of sensory learning modalities on children’s sensitivity to sensory cues in the perception of their school environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 208–215. Martin, S. (2012). Does instructional format really matter? Cognitive load theory, multimedia and teaching English Literature. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(2), 125–152. Massa, L. J., and Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321–335. Merriam, S. B., and Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in Learning: Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Montero Perez, M., Peters, E., and Desmet, P. (2018). Vocabulary learning through viewing video: the effect of two enhancement techniques. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 1-26. Mulalic, A., Shah, P., and Ahmad, F. (2009). Perceptual learning styles of ESL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 110–113. Murphy, N. (1997). A multisensory vs. conventional approach to Teaching spelling [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kean College of New Jersey. Murray, E. A., and Mishkin, M. (1985). Amygdalectomy impairs crossmodal association in monkeys. Science, 228(4699), 604–606. Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational Psychology: Developing learners (6 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Ortega, L. (2018). Ontologies of language, second language acquisition, and world Englishes. World Englishes, 37(1), 64–79. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Aptitude Reconsidered: Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. Prentice Hall. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Style Analysis Survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. Y. Shi & C- Tsai: A Canonical Correlation Analysis: Learning Preferences and Sensory-Specific English Learning Material Stimuli 509 Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–20. Rao, Z. (2011). Bridging the gap between teaching and learning styles in East Asian contexts. TESOL Journal, 11(2), 5–11. Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. In Reid, J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 202-207). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87–111. Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom: ERIC. Reid, J. M. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 87–109. Rezler, A. G., and Rezmovic, V. (1981). The Learning Preference Inventory. Journal of Allied Health, 10(1), 28–34. Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 29–49. Riding, R. J., and Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 193–215. Riding, R., and Agrell, T. (1997). The effect of cognitive style and cognitive skills on school subject performance. Educational Studies, 23(2), 311–323. R i e n e r , C . , a n d W i l l i n g h a m , D . ( 2 0 1 0 ) . T h e m y t h o f l e a r ning styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32–35. Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., and Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. Shams, L., and Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417. Shepard-Carey, L. (2020). Making sense of comprehension practices and pedagogies in multimodal ways: A second-grade emergent bilingual’s sensemaking during small-group reading. Linguistics and Education, 55, Article 100777. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., and Zhang, L. F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486–506. Tabatabaei, O., and Mashayekhi, S. (2012). The relationship between EFL learners’ learning styles and their L2 achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 245–253. Thang, S. M., Nambiar, R. M., Wong, F. F., Jaafar, N. M., and Amir, Z. (2015). A clamour for more technology in universities: What does an investigation into the ICT use and learning styles of Malaysian ‘Digital Natives’ tell us? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 353–361. Tinajero, C., and Páramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199–212. Tomlinson, B. (2008). English Language Learning Materials: A critical review: Bloomsbury Publishing. Tuan, L. T. (2011). EFL learners’ learning styles and their attributes. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 299–320. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., and Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., and Verna, M. A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style modalities for ESL/EFL students. System, 31, 85–106. Wright, B. A., and Zhang, Y. (2009). A review of the generalization of auditory learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1515), 301–311. 510 REVIJA ZA ELEMENTARNO IZOBRAŽEVANJE JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Authors Yi-shan Shi PhD Candidate, University of Taipei, Department of Education, No. 1, Aiguo W. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100234, Taiwan (R.O.C.), e-mail: isan.shih@gmail.com Doktorski kandidat, Univerza Tajpej, Oddelek za izobraževanje, No. 1, Aiguo W. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100234, Taiwan (R.O.C.), e-pošta: isan.shih@gmail.com Chih-yung Tsai, PhD Professor, University of Taipei, Department of Education, No. 1, Aiguo W. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100234, Taiwan (R.O.C.), e-mail: cytsai@utaipei.edu.tw Profesor, Univerza Tajpej, Oddelek za izobraževanje, No. 1, Aiguo W. Rd., Zhongzheng Dist., Taipei City 100234, Taiwan (R.O.C.), e-pošta: cytsai@utaipei.edu.tw