Study Examines How Engineering ESL Instructors Address Varied Student Learning Styles

A mixed-methods empirical investigation across engineering institutions in southern India reveals that English as a Second Language instructors consistently implement text-centered and auditory teaching methods while showing stark institutional disparities in accommodating hands-on and visual learning modalities. The research, carried out by Sujatha U. and Rajasekaran V. across five engineering colleges situated in the Chengalpattu district of Tamil Nadu, assessed how higher education language educators translate their conceptual awareness of student learning style differences into structured classroom practices. By examining pedagogical strategies through the lens of Neil Fleming’s VARK framework, which classifies sensory learning preferences into Visual, Auditory, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic categories, the researchers analyzed the operational alignment between instructional design, available curriculum resources, and the specialized communication competencies mandated within technical degree programs.

The study was prompted by an enduring pedagogical problem identified throughout technical education literature, wherein language instructors in professional colleges must cultivate general English proficiency alongside rigorous, discipline-specific technical communication skills. Although engineering students frequently demonstrate learning profiles characterized by active experimentation and visual interpretation, conventional language education often defaults to standard lecture formats and text-heavy assignments. Prior scholarship noted that mismatches between instructional delivery and student sensory preferences can trigger classroom disengagement, reduced motivation, poor assessment performance, and heightened language anxiety. Despite widespread theoretical acknowledgment of learner variability, the researchers identified a pronounced absence of empirical evidence documenting how educators in regional engineering settings adapt their day-to-day teaching to meet varied learning modalities.

To investigate this gap, the authors implemented a convergent parallel mixed-methods design that synthesized quantitative survey metrics with qualitative participant interviews. The quantitative phase utilized a census sampling model targeting all qualified instructors across five accredited institutions offering diversified engineering disciplines where faculty had taught technical and communicative English for at least five years. A sample of 40 instructors completed a validated 20-item survey instrument adapted from prior research by Yotta, with items scored on a four-point frequency scale ranging from never to often across the four VARK dimensions. Power analysis for a five-group analysis of variance with an effect size of 0.25 at 0.80 statistical power confirmed that a minimum threshold of 39 participants was required, satisfying analytical rigor for subsequent testing.

For the complementary qualitative phase, researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive subset of 15 educators, drawing three participants from each participating college. These sessions, carried out remotely over Zoom for durations of 10 to 15 minutes, addressed three core themes covering the identification and accommodation of learning modalities, engineering-specific contextual constraints, and perceived barriers impacting classroom adaptation. Interview data were transcribed and evaluated using a six-phase thematic analysis framework, supplemented by member checking where participant summaries were reviewed for accuracy. The quantitative survey metrics were processed via statistical software to generate descriptive means, standard deviations, one-way analysis of variance comparisons, post hoc Tukey honest significant difference evaluations, Cronbach’s alpha reliability calculations, and Levene’s test for variance homogeneity.

The quantitative results demonstrated a pervasive structural dominance of Read/Write and Auditory modalities across all evaluated campuses, reflecting standardized reliance on traditional lecture-based and print-based instruction. Read/Write accommodation achieved the highest overall mean score of 3.39 with a standard deviation of 0.66, displaying near-identical campus-level averages between 3.38 and 3.41. The Auditory modality recorded an overall mean of 2.97 with a standard deviation of 0.74, with college-level averages spanning narrowly between 2.92 and 3.00. Statistical testing confirmed that neither the Read/Write modality nor the Auditory modality exhibited statistically significant variation between institutions, each yielding an identical probability value of 1.000 under one-way analysis of variance testing.

In marked contrast, accommodations for Visual and Kinesthetic learning modalities revealed substantial overall deficits and statistically significant institutional variance across the five colleges. The overall mean for Visual accommodation dropped to 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.71, with campus scores ranging from a low of 2.13 in College D to a high of 3.05 in College B, yielding a statistically significant difference across groups. Kinesthetic accommodation recorded the lowest overall mean at 2.55 with a standard deviation of 0.91, alongside profound institutional divergence. Post hoc analyses established that College B and College E, recording respective kinesthetic means of 3.40 and 3.38, significantly outperformed College C and College D, which registered low means of 1.85 and 1.80.

Qualitative findings provided critical context explaining why instructional practices diverged so sharply across institutions operating under comparable regional educational frameworks. Faculty at College B actively counteracted institutional inertia by pursuing direct interdisciplinary collaboration with engineering departmental faculty, designing applied tasks such as visual technical demonstrations, group problem-solving exercises, and flexible evaluation formats encompassing mini-projects and oral presentations alongside written reports. Similarly, instructors at College E structured lessons to mirror the natural multimodality of engineering work, systematically integrating visual slides, engineering case analyses, written reflections, and hands-on communicative projects across lesson phases. Both institutions successfully demonstrated that deliberate instructional planning and faculty initiative can establish balanced four-modality instructional environments despite overarching curriculum requirements.

Conversely, qualitative accounts from College C and College D documented substantial systemic barriers that reinforced traditional, non-multimodal teaching conventions. In College D, educators explicitly justified their focus on lecture delivery and technical writing tasks, asserting that rigorous academic explanations best prepared students for formal examinations and engineering documentation requirements, an approach directly reflected in the college’s suppressed kinesthetic and visual quantitative scores. Instructors at College C reported using multimedia presentations and audio materials but noted that resource deficits and tight instructional schedules prevented the regular integration of experiential, kinesthetic exercises. Furthermore, educators observed that students frequently prioritized technical discipline courses over English, creating resistance to nontraditional instructional formats.

The study highlighted structural misalignments between available learning materials, institutional assessment protocols, and the diverse sensory needs of engineering undergraduates. Educators across multiple sites also reported an absence of targeted professional development programs focused on equipping language teachers with practical techniques for integrating physical demonstrations and interactive tasks into engineering curricula.

The authors noted several methodological boundaries, including the study’s focused geographical perimeter within Chengalpattu district, which constrains broad generalizability across diverse national or international settings. The cross-sectional investigation relied upon self-reported instructor surveys and concise 10-to-15-minute interviews rather than continuous classroom observation or objective assessments of student learning outcomes. To advance the discipline, the researchers recommended future investigations expand sampling across broader geographic regions, examine student-centered preference metrics, and evaluate longitudinal learning outcomes associated with multimodal, technology-integrated language curricula tailored specifically for technical education environments.

Subject of Research: Exploring ESL pedagogical strategies across diverse learning styles: insights from English language educators

Article Title: Exploring ESL pedagogical strategies across diverse learning styles: insights from English language educators

Article References: U., S., & V., R. (2026). Exploring ESL pedagogical strategies across diverse learning styles: insights from English language educators. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 11(1), Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-026-00438-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40862-026-00438-0

Keywords: Exploring, pedagogical, strategies, across, diverse, learning, styles, insights, English, language, educators, scientific research