Developed Lessons in Grade 8 Biology for Students with Different Learning Styles

  • Kevin M. Taduran
  • Joseph Roland M. Nasol


This descriptive-qualitative study, developed lessons in Grade 8 Biology for students with different learning styles and determined the learning outcomes of Grade 8 students under Special Science Program of Bicol Regional Science High School.  Thirty-one Grade 8 Junior High School Students under Special Science Curriculum of Bicol Regional Science High School took the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Among which, five (5) students have a Balancing learning style. The next group of students manifested Active Experimentation learning style it is composed of seven (7) students. Reflective Observation was also present. It is composed of nine (9) students. The most dominant learning style of the students is Abstract Conceptualization, a total of ten (10) students. Furthermore, one (1) student have a Concrete learning style. It is clear that the respondents are heterogeneous class which has different learning styles. Eleven lessons were developed to cater the different learning styles of the students to enhance their learning experiences, learning outcomes in terms conceptual understanding and metacognitive skills of biology especially in Biodiversity. The lessons included (a) Biodiversity: Revisit of Its History, (b) Species Diversity, (c) Genetic Diversity, (d) Ecosystem Diversity, (e) Hierarchical Classification, (f) Kingdoms of Biology: Animalia and Protista, (g) Kingdoms of Biology: Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, (h) Kingdoms of Biology: Fungi and Plantae, (i) Role of Humans in Species Extinction, (j) Species: Protection and Economic Role and (k) Ecosystem Approach to Sustaining Biodiversity. The lessons paraded features such as content that is suitable to students’ level of development, format that uses the 7E’s lesson model, presentation and organization that is logical, information that is accurate and updated, and approaches that address the identified learning styles to promote equal opportunity among the students in the field of Biology especially in Biodiversity. The following are the significant learning experiences of the students: (a) Balancing students: have a first-hand involvement where they actively participate in group works. They engaged themselves and take roles seriously to accomplish a task.  They value sense of respect from each member of the group by listening to their opinions in order to arrive to have better outputs. (b) Abstract Conceptualization students: they look at the performance of other groups and improve it to produce much better results.  They do well-coordinated actions in finding solutions. Their experiences were drawn by stepping back from their experiences. They make use of patterns to make sense of their surroundings and make use of their current situations to accomplish a task quickly, (c) Reflective Observation students: reflect from their experiences which include their feelings and perspective. They take time to get things thoroughly. (d) Abstract Conceptualization students: they focus on the practical aspect and choose the best path to achieve their task. Sharing ideas and the presenting outputs in front of the class help them the most.  They make use of concept maps, graphic organizers and pantomime as they enhance their ability to answer questions and skills in acting. (e) Concrete Experience students: this student found meaning from the activities by means of deep involvement and physically engaging himself resulting to better outputs and learning experiences. The following are the learning outcomes of the students that depict their conceptual understanding: (a) Balancing students: their approach in learning and experiences vary from time to time.  It was evident that aside from enumerating all their learnings from the lessons, they had translated their learning with the notion of seeing the order or step by step process in presenting their ideas. On the other hand, in some of their presentations, their answer denotes exploring other ways and deriving other meaning of the lesson. They navigate their reflection resulting to more meaningful understanding, (b) Active Experimentation students:  these learners go beyond what has been learned in their lessons. With the aid of short video clips, case studies and words to ponder, they become more sensitive about the effects of situations they had from the lessons and foresee things in different perspective. They attach themselves and draw meaning to the lessons which makes their conceptual understanding evident, (c) Reflective Observation students: their responses are rich in content by analyzing their experience in the lesson. The presentation of their answers was organized based on the extracted learnings they had. They were able to organize their learnings and translate them into their own understanding of the lesson. Moreover, they also do some reflection of the lessons. They consider the bigger picture of the lesson by means of looking at its effects. As a result, they suggested strategies in line with solving environmental issues which is a manifestation of conceptual understanding, (d) Abstract Conceptualization students: their response put emphasis on experimenting between cause and effect that allows them to think about the connection one concept to another. More than that, their understanding of the lesson leads them to see the source and results. They manifested their conceptual understanding by means of making inference on concepts. (e) Concrete Experience students: the response of this student practically revolve into his experience. He connects his previous learnings to better understand the lessons and activities he is into. There was an increase in the content knowledge of the students in Biodiversity which was revealed by the results of the pretest-posttest taken by the students. A mean score of 25.72 (42.87% Performance Level) in the pretest increased to 43.16 (71.93% Performance Level) in the posttest with a mean gain of 17.44 (29.07% PL). In terms of metacognitive skills, the following are the metacognitive outcomes of the students: (a) Balancing students; this group became much skilled as they strategized in accomplishing a task. They assigned tasks among the members to be accomplished in more effective and efficient manner. Their metacognitive ability- connecting their past learnings to new ones aided their group to have a good presentation. In addition, they became more particular about the events around them. Listening to the inputs of their teacher and sharing it to their groupmates was their strategy. (b) Active Experimentation students: taking down notes, processing and analyzing the inputs are the common metacognitive skills demonstrated by this group. Further, they conducted brainstorming among their members resulting to a satisfactory output. It was evident that this group made decisions carefully and took time to think. (c) Reflective Observation students: the manner that this group performed a certain task shows that they used procedures to accomplished it. They also used a strategy in order to meet the demands of the task. They adjusted to take control of their actions that could be of great help in producing better results. One of the remarkable responses of this group was that a member explained that he was able to see the relationship of one concept to another. He produced a concept map that helped him identify what he wanted to know about the lesson which both corresponded to his awareness of the lesson. (d) Abstract Conceptualization students: one of the remarkable skills that this group demonstrated was when they used “info-sheet”- a self-de-bugging strategy in order for them to define difficult words in an easier way. (e) Concrete Experience students: He engaged in dialogue with others to generate rich discussion and debate in non-threatening and thoughtful manner.


Alaka, A. M. (2011). Learning styles: What difference do the differences make? Charleston Law Review, 5(2), 133-172.
Bishka, A. (2010). Learning styles fray: Performance Improvement, 1-40.
Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413-430.
Cox, S. G. (2008, May). Differentiated instruction in the elementary classroom. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(9), 52-54.
SRATE Journal Fall - Winter 2012, Vol. 22, Number 1 Page 42 Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2006). Towards inclusive teacher education: Sensitizing individuals to how they learn. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 499-518.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.
Glenn, D. (2009). Matching teaching style to learning style may not help students.
Guild, P. B. (2001). Diversity, Learning Style and Culture. New Horizons for Learning.
Hall, E., & Moseley, D. (2005). Is there a role for learning styles in personalised education and training?. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(3), 243-255.
Hsieh, S-W., Jang, Y-R., Hwang, G-J., & Chen, N-S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1194-1201.
Kratzig, G., & Arbuthnott, K. (2006). Perceptual test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238-246. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ734402)
Lauria, J. (2010). Differentiation through learning- style responsive strategies. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(1), 24-29.
Lovelace, M. (2005, January). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn Model. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 176-183.
Martin, S. (2010). Teachers using learning styles: Torn between research and accountability?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1583-1591.
Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193-211.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, Rohrer, D. & Bjork,R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 9(3), 105-119.
Romanelli, F., Bird, E., & Ryan, M. (2009). Learning styles: A review of theory, application, and best practices. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(1), 1-5.
Scott, C. (2010). The enduring appeal of ‘learning styles’. Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 5-17.
Sharp, J., Bowker, R., & Byrne, J. (2008). Towards the trivialization of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 293-314.
Sternberg, R., Grigorenko, E., & Zhang, L. (2008, November). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 3(6), 486-506.
Williamson, M. F., & Watson, R. L. (2007). Learning styles research: Understanding how teaching should be impacted by the way learners learn: Part III:
Understanding how learners’ personality styles impact learning. Christian Education Journal, 4(1). 62-77.
Zapalska, A., & Dabb, H. (2002). Learning styles. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 13(3/4), 77-97.

Teaching Style vs. Learning Style. Educational Resources Retrieved from

Teaching with styles. A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding
teaching and learning styles. Retrieved from

The seven learning styles. Retrieved, from
Language Learning Styles And Strategies: An Overview. Retrieved from

Implementing Kolb’s learning styles into online distance education:
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, Retrieved from
How to Cite
M. TADURAN, Kevin; M. NASOL, Joseph Roland. Developed Lessons in Grade 8 Biology for Students with Different Learning Styles. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 3, p. 98-117, oct. 2021. ISSN 2682-8138. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 03 dec. 2021.