Correction

This article refers to:

Are there effects of a match between learning style and teaching style in an EFL classroom?

Article title: Are there effects of a match between learning style and teaching style in an EFL classroom?

Authors: Michiko Toyama and Yoshitaka Yamazaki

Journal: Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2019.1575386

When the above article was first published online, the following sentences and tables 5 and 6 were written with incorrect results and information.

“Findings. We created groups for student-teacher match and student-teacher mismatch (i.e., student’s learning style vs. teacher’s teaching style). The match group including four matched learning style–teaching style pairs was significantly related to proficiency and motivation, while the mismatch group including all other pairs was not”

The corrected sentence should be as follows: “Findings. We created groups for student-teacher match and student-teacher mismatch (i.e., student’s learning style vs. teacher’s teaching style). The match group including four matched learning style–teaching style pairs was significantly related to proficiency and motivation, while the mismatch group including all other pairs was also significantly related to them”.

Results of the paired t-test revealed that a match was significantly related to English proficiency (t = 3.35, p < .01; d = 0.23) and motivation to learn English (t = 2.75, p < .01; d = 0.18), while a mismatch had an insignificant relation to both variables (proficiency: t = 1.01, p > .10, d = 0.10; motivation: t = 1.95, p > .10, d = 0.20). Although the matching/mismatching hypothesis was supported, the effect size was small.

The corrected sentence should be as follows: Results of the paired t-test revealed that a match was significantly related to English proficiency (t = 2.89, p < .01; d = 0.25) and motivation to learn English (t = 2.24, p < .05; d = 0.27), while a mismatch also had a significant relation to both variables (proficiency: t = 2.19, p < .05, d = 0.15; motivation: t = 2.52, p < .05, d = 0.18). Accordingly, the matching/mismatching hypothesis was not supported.

Results of the paired t-test illustrated that a match of the pair of Accommodating style and Coach role significantly increased English proficiency with about a medium effect (t = 3.20, p < .01; d = 0.41), while a match of the pair of Accommodating-Diverging and Coach-Facilitator was marginally related to proficiency, with less than a small effect (t = 1.91, p < .10; d = 0.16). Matches for the other two pairs were not significantly associated with proficiency. Also, results revealed that a match of the pair of Diverging style and Facilitator role significantly and effectively increased motivation to learn English (t = 2.71, p < .05; d = 0.59), and a match of the pair of Accommodating-Diverging and Coach-Facilitator also significantly increased motivation with a small effect (t = 2.65, p < .01; d = 0.22).

The corrected sentence should be as follows: Results of the paired t-test illustrated that a match of the pair of Accommodating style and Coach role significantly increased English proficiency with about a medium effect (t = 3.20, p < .01; d = 0.41), while the matches for the other three pairs were not significantly associated with proficiency. Also, results revealed that a match of the pair of Diverging style and Facilitator role significantly and effectively increased motivation to learn English (t = 2.71, p < .05; d = 0.59), and a match of the pair of Accommodating-Diverging and Coach-Facilitator marginally increased motivation with a small effect (t = 1.96, p < .10; d = 0.28).

Overall, this analysis pointed out that the effect of a match between learning style and teaching style was limited. Even though the first step supported the match/mismatch hypothesis, the second step did not confirm it. Table 6 describes the results of the second step.

The corrected sentence should be as follows: Overall, this analysis pointed out that the effect of a match between learning style and teaching style was limited. The first and second steps did not confirm the match/mismatch hypothesis. Table 6 describes the results of the second step.

The correct tables can be found below:

Table 5. Results of the paired t-test regarding the effect of match and mismatch group on two variables.

Variables	Groups	N	April		July		Mean Difference	SD	t	df	d
		Student	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Proficiency	Match	131	346.29	98.57	361.43	106.80	15.14	59.94	2.89**	130	0.25
	Mismatch	200	370.70	99.60	382.77	106.63	12.08	77.97	2.19*	199	0.15
Motivation to learn English	Match	131	3.44	0.55	3.56	0.69	0.11	0.57	2.24*	130	0.27
	Mismatch	200	3.43	0.66	3.55	0.69	0.12	0.65	2.52*	199	0.18

**p < .01.

Table 6. Results of the paired t-test regarding the effect of the specific pairs within the match group on two variables.

Variables	Matching Pairs			April		July		Mean Difference	SD	t	df	d
	Major teacher's role	Learning style	N	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Proficiency	Coach	Accommodating	60	365.47	103.09	389.48	112.18	24.02	58.09	3.20**	59	0.41
	Facilitator	Diverging	21	365.33	88.32	358.62	103.33	−6.71	76.20	−0.40	20	−0.09
	Subject Expert	Assimilating	2	313.50	17.68	367.50	72.83	54.00	90.51	0.84	1	0.60
	Coach-Facilitator	Accommodating-Diverging	48	315.35	92.47	327.33	94.32	11.98	51.67	1.61	47	0.23
Motivation to learn English	Coach	Accommodating	60	3.54	0.52	3.55	0.69	0.02	0.62	0.21	59	0.03
	Facilitator	Diverging	21	3.31	0.55	3.62	0.77	0.31	0.52	2.71*	20	0.59
	Subject Expert	Assimilating	2	3.21	0.71	3.29	0.40	0.07	0.30	0.33	1	0.24
	Coach-Facilitator	Accommodating-Diverging	48	3.40	0.59	3.55	0.68	0.15	0.53	1.96^†	47	0.28

**p < .01.

*p < .05

^†p < .10.

The corrected version is available online.