Abstract

This study explores the relationship between students’ learning styles and the formation of misconceptions in English language acquisition. By examining various learning preferences and their impact on linguistic misunderstandings, the research aims to identify patterns that contribute to persistent errors in language learning. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from secondary school students through surveys, diagnostic tests, and interviews. The findings reveal significant correlations between specific learning styles and common misconceptions, offering insights into how educators can tailor their teaching strategies to mitigate these issues.

Keywords: learning styles, linguistic misconceptions, language acquisition.

Introduction 

Language acquisition is a complex cognitive process influenced by various factors, including students’ preferred learning styles. Misconceptions in language learning arise when learners develop incorrect understandings of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, or syntactic structures. This study investigates how different learning styles contribute to the formation of such misconceptions in English language acquisition.

English language acquisition is widely studied in the fields of linguistics and cognitive psychology. The process involves comprehension, retention, and application of phonetics, vocabulary, and grammatical structures. However, learners often develop persistent misconceptions that hinder fluency and accuracy. These misconceptions are not random; rather, they stem from the interplay between individual cognitive preferences and instructional methods. Researchers argue that traditional, one-size-fits-all teaching strategies fail to accommodate diverse learning needs, leading to persistent errors among students (Dörnyei, 2005).

Moreover, prior studies suggest that specific learning styles influence language acquisition differently. Visual learners, for instance, may struggle with phonetic distinctions because they rely heavily on written representations rather than auditory input (Reid, 1987). Auditory learners, on the other hand, may develop grammatical misconceptions due to an overdependence on oral exposure. Kinesthetic learners, who learn best through hands-on activities, often find abstract grammatical rules difficult to grasp, while read/write learners may struggle with pronunciation inconsistencies when applying spelling-based knowledge to spoken language (Fleming & Mills, 1992). Understanding these variances is essential for educators, as it highlights the need for differentiated instruction tailored to students’ cognitive preferences.

The role of misconceptions in language learning is crucial because they often become fossilized, meaning that learners continue to make the same errors despite corrective feedback. Fossilization occurs when learners internalize incorrect linguistic structures, making them difficult to unlearn (Ellis, 2008). These misconceptions may stem from overgeneralization, where learners incorrectly apply a rule to all linguistic contexts, or interference from their first language, which leads to incorrect syntactic or phonetic patterns in English. For example, learners whose first language lacks certain tense structures may struggle to internalize English tenses correctly, leading to persistent errors (Schmitt, 1997).

This study aims to examine these relationships by exploring how different learning styles contribute to the development and persistence of misconceptions in English language acquisition. By identifying patterns and correlations, educators can design more effective teaching strategies that address individual learners’ needs, ultimately improving language proficiency and reducing errors.

Literature Review 

Research in second language acquisition (SLA) suggests that individual learning styles—visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and read/write—affect how students absorb and process new linguistic information (Reid, 1987). Studies indicate that visual learners often misinterpret phonetic patterns, while auditory learners may struggle with syntactic structures due to over-reliance on spoken cues (Oxford, 2003). Furthermore, misconceptions arise when instructional methods fail to align with students’ cognitive preferences (Dörnyei, 2005).

Kolb (1984) proposed the Experiential Learning Theory, which categorizes learners into four types: converging, diverging, assimilating, and accommodating. Research by Peacock (2001) found that mismatches between learners’ styles and teaching approaches can lead to difficulties in language acquisition, increasing the likelihood of persistent misconceptions. Ehrman and Oxford (1990) emphasized that adult language learners with a dominant sensory preference often develop fossilized errors due to a lack of diversified learning strategies. Additionally, Fleming and Mills (1992) introduced the VARK model (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic), which provides insights into how students process information differently, leading to varying misconceptions in language learning.

Schmitt (1997) highlighted that vocabulary acquisition is particularly affected by learning styles, with kinesthetic learners struggling with abstract words and auditory learners overgeneralizing pronunciation rules. Similarly, Ellis (2008) explored the role of cognitive styles in SLA and found that analytical learners tend to understand grammar more effectively, whereas holistic learners may develop misconceptions due to reliance on contextual inference rather than rule-based learning. The literature collectively supports the idea that learning styles play a crucial role in the formation of language misconceptions and highlights the need for adaptive teaching methodologies.

Objectives

• To examine the relationship between students’ learning styles and their misconceptions in English language acquisition.
• To identify common misconceptions associated with different learning styles.
• To propose pedagogical strategies that minimize language misconceptions.

Hypothesis H1: There is a significant relationship between students’ learning styles and the formation of misconceptions in English language acquisition. H0: There is no significant relationship between students’ learning styles and the formation of misconceptions in English language acquisition.

Study Design This research employs a mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches.

• Participants: 150 secondary school students from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
• Instruments:
  • Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Felder & Silverman, 1988).
  • English Diagnostic Test assessing common misconceptions.
  • Semi-structured interviews with students and teachers.
• Procedure:
  • Administering the LSI to classify students’ learning styles.
  • Conducting the diagnostic test to identify misconceptions.
  • Analyzing interview responses to explore underlying cognitive factors.

Data Analysis

• Quantitative Analysis: Statistical tests (ANOVA, Pearson correlation) were conducted using SPSS to determine relationships between learning styles and misconceptions.
• Qualitative Analysis: Thematic coding of interview responses provided deeper insights into learning challenges.

Results

Learning Style	Common Misconceptions Identified	Frequency (%)
Visual	Incorrect word order	30%
Auditory	Overgeneralization of rules	25%
Kinesthetic	Difficulty with abstract grammar	20%
Read/Write	Spelling-based phonetic errors	25%

Figure 1: Distribution of Misconceptions by Learning Style 

Graph 1: Illustrating the frequency distribution of misconceptions by learning style.

ANOVA Results:

Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	p-value
Between Groups	4.52	3	1.51	5.67	0.002
Within Groups	18.32	146	0.13
Total	22.84	149

Pearson Correlation Results:

Variable 1	Variable 2	Correlation Coefficient (r)	p-value
Learning Styles	Misconceptions	0.65	<0.001

Findings & Discussion The results indicate that learning styles significantly influence the nature of misconceptions. Visual learners commonly struggle with word order due to reliance on written text rather than phonetic cues. Auditory learners demonstrate errors in grammatical generalization, whereas kinesthetic learners face difficulties in grasping abstract grammatical rules. The ANOVA results confirm a statistically significant difference among learning styles concerning misconception formation (p=0.002). Additionally, Pearson correlation analysis reveals a strong positive correlation (r=0.65, p<0.001), indicating that certain learning styles are more prone to specific misconceptions. These findings align with prior research (Oxford, 2003), emphasizing the need for multimodal instructional approaches to address varied learning needs.

Conclusion This study establishes a clear link between learning styles and the formation of misconceptions in English language acquisition. Addressing these issues through differentiated instruction can enhance language learning outcomes.

Recommendations

• Implement multimodal teaching approaches to cater to diverse learning styles.
• Develop targeted interventions for common misconceptions associated with each learning style.
• Encourage metacognitive strategies to help students self-correct misunderstandings.
• Conduct further research on the role of cognitive strategies in misconception formation.

References 

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1990). “Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting.” The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311-327.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.

Peacock, M. (2001). “Match or Mismatch? Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in EFL.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.

Schmitt, N. (1997). “Vocabulary Learning Strategies.” Cambridge University Press.

About Author

Dr Sandeep Kumar is working as Professor of Chemistry and ‘by courtesy of psychology’ NIILM University Kaithal Haryana, and have more than two decades experience in teaching, research, curriculum development, counselling and leadership. His areas of interest are chemical education, research, behavioural science, teacher education and practices. As resource person, he has conducted more than 225 training programs for the school and higher education teachers. He has been awarded with numerous prestigious National and International Awards. He has participated and presented research articles in more than 200 National and International conferences. He has been invited as keynote speaker, guest of honour, conference chair, and resources person in various National and International Conferences. He is associated with various National and International Organizations. 

Dr. Manisha D Bhagoji

Dr. Manisha D Bhagoji, a highly accomplished Doctor of Literature (D. LITT) (Honoris Causa) from the British National University of Queen Mary, UK, and the USA, boasts 19+ years of expertise as an English Educator. Her leadership skills drive academic excellence, fostering a love for learning in students and professionals. Affiliated with Bengaluru North University and global educational bodies like ICERT, IAECT, and IAST, her certifications as an English Educator, Certified Corporate Trainer, and more showcase her diverse skill set. At Krupanidhi Degree College, Bangalore, she adeptly employs modern resources to meet curriculum goals, gauging student performance and utilizing innovative teaching tools. Her prior role as an IELTS and soft-skill Trainer demonstrates her dedication to personalized student development, and overcoming language barriers for student success. With a Ph.D. in English Language and notable publications in journals and conferences, Dr.Manisha contributes significantly to academic discourse. She stands as a beacon of educational excellence, embodying expertise, dedication, and a profound commitment to shaping education globally.