Learning Outcomes and Inclusive Character Among Elementary Students: A MANOVA Analysis Based on Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learning Preferences

Restu Syahtini; Yusrizal Yusrizal; Azizah Yusra Amaliyah Harahap; Fatmawati Fatmawati

doi:10.58421/misro.v5i2.1773

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/misro.v5i2.1773

Authors

Restu Syahtini Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Amal Bakti
Yusrizal Yusrizal Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Amal Bakti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1792-1979
Azizah Yusra Amaliyah Harahap Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Amal Bakti
Fatmawati Fatmawati Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Amal Bakti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7757-3745

Keywords:

Elementary school students, Inclusive character, Learning outcomes, Learning preferences, MANOVA

Abstract

Learning outcomes and inclusive character are essential indicators of quality elementary education, yet their relationships across students with different learning preferences remain insufficiently understood. Previous studies have generally examined these variables separately, providing limited evidence within an integrated framework. This study analyzed the relationships between learning outcomes and inclusive character based on visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning preferences among elementary school students. A quantitative cross-sectional comparative design was employed involving 54 fourth-grade students selected through saturated sampling. Learning outcomes were measured using essay tests, while inclusive character and learning preferences were assessed through questionnaires. PLS-SEM was used exclusively to evaluate instrument validity and reliability, whereas MANOVA examined group differences and hypothesis testing. The multivariate results showed no significant simultaneous effect of learning preferences on learning outcomes and inclusive character (Wilks' Lambda = 0.406–0.712, p > 0.05). However, auditory learning preference demonstrated a significant partial effect on learning outcomes (F = 2.183, p < 0.05), while visual and kinesthetic preferences showed no significant effects. These findings suggest that learning outcomes and inclusive character are influenced more by overall instructional quality than by learning preference classifications alone. The study extends understanding of learning preferences in inclusive elementary education and supports adaptive, student-centered instructional practices.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

M. A. Alafnan, “Enhancing educational outcomes using AlAfnan taxonomy: Integrating cognitive , affective , and psychomotor domains,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2419–2437, 2025, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v14i3.33147.

Masfuah and U. Chasanah, “Students learning outcomes determined by self-efficacy and learning motivation,” Int. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. Eng. Technol., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–6, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://ejournalisse.com/

K. Pollock and P. Briscoe, “School principals’ understandings of student difference and diversity and how these understandings influence their work,” Int. J. Educ. Manag., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 518–534, 2026, doi: 10.1108/IJEM-07-2019-0243.

J. Vas and D. A. Sharma, “Impact od auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles on english achievement in high school students,” Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Sci. Res., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 31–50, 2025, doi: 10.31426/ijamsr.2025.8.3.8114.

B. A. Rogowsky, B. M. Calhoun, P. Tallal, and A. J. Fawcett, “Providing instruction based on students’ learning style preferences does not improve learning,” Front. Psychol., vol. 11, no. February, pp. 1–7, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00164.

M. Rif’an, “Inclusive character education: A critical review of the literature on teachers’ experiences in managing classrooms with diverse learning needs,” Sosioedukasi J. Ilm. Ilmu Pendidik. dan Sos., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 251–259, 2025, doi: 10.36526/sosioedukasi.v14i1.5295.

R. D. Aquino and W. O. Gapasin, “Fostering quality education through classroom dynamics: Their impact on school climate and students engagement,” Int. J. Adv. Multidiscip. Stud., vol. V, no. 10, pp. 49–73, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/

A. Ali, S. Bektiarso, A. F. Walukow, and E. Narulita, “Building inclusive learning communities in multicultural classrooms: The role of the CTL model in learning interpersonal skills,” Tafkir Interdiscip. J. Islam. Educ., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 568–583, 2024, doi: 10.31538/tijie.v5i4.1172.

A. M. Alhassan, K. Solheim, B. Mellemsether, and M. H. Christensen, “Teachers’ perspectives on supporting special needs in inclusive high schools,” Educ. Res., vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 407–424, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00131881.2025.2557641.

N. A. Shofiyyah and D. Miharja, “Strategy of integrating pluralism values in the development of inclusive curriculum in educational institutions,” AL-AFKAR J. Islam. Stud. J., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 278–294, 2025, doi: 10.31943/afkarjournal.v8i2.1465.Abstract.

T. N. Fitria and N. E. Simbolon, “English language teaching (ELT) for students with visual-spatial learning style,” J. English Lit. Linguist. Educ., vol. 5, no. 02, pp. 8–25, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/

V. Okulich-kazarin, “What method of learning do media students prefer at leacture: Auditory or visual?,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2660–2667, 2020, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080650.

Y. Jonivan, Suhirman, and Saepudin, “The eefcet of kinesthetic learning style on students’ motivation and learning interest,” J. Educ. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 60–71, 2026, doi: 10.31258/jes.10.1.p.60-71.

R. S. Siregar, “Students’ preferences for varied learning methods: An empirical study of the effectiveness and appeal of diverse instructional approaches,” J. Profesi Guru Indones., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 140–152, 2025, doi: 10.62945/jpgi.v1i2.679.

J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5 Edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2018.

P. D. Sugiyono, Metode penelitian kuantitatif kualitatif dan R & D, Edisi 5. Alfabeta, 2023.

M. P. Dr. Imam Machali, Metode penelitian kuantitatif: Panduan praktis merencanakan, melaksanakan dan analisis dalam penelitian kuantitatif, Edisi 3. Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta, 2021.

M. R. Ilhami, “Evaluation of the goals and objects of assessment of aspect s of student learning through Bloom’s taxonomy,” Int. J. Heal. Econ. Soc. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 401–406, 2024, doi: 10.56338/ijhess.v6i2.4968.

M. Arif, Y. A. Abdurakhmonovich, and S. Dorloh, “Character education in the 21st century: The relevance of Abdul Wahhab Ash Syarani’s and Thomas Lickona’s concepts,” Islam. Rev. J. Ris. dan Kaji. Keislam., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 35–58, 2023, doi: 10.35878/islamicreview.v12i1.690.

S. N. A. M. Noor and M. K. A. Ramly, “Bridging learning styles and student prefrences in construction technology education: VARK Model Analysis,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Progress. Educ. Dev., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2075–2085, 2023, doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i3/19313.

J. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate data analysis, 8 Edition. Andover: Cengage Learning, 2019.

K. N. Smith, K. N. Lamb, and R. K. Henson, “Making meaning out of MANOVA: The need for multivariate post hoc testing gifted education research,” Methodol. Br., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 41 –55, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0016986219890352.

M. A. A. Abulela and M. M. Harwell, “Data Analysis: Strengthening infrences in quantitative education studies conducted by novice rearchers,” Educ. Sci. Theory Pract., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 59–78, 2020, doi: 10.12738/jestp.2020.1.005.

J. Maya, J. F. Luesia, and J. Pérez-Padilla, “The relationship between learning styles and academic performances: Consistency among multiple assessment methods in psychology and education students,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. March, pp. 1–18, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13063341.

A. Atteberry and A. Mceachin, “Schools’s out: The role of summers in unnderstanding achievement disparities,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 239–282, 2021, doi: 10.3102/0002831220937285.

S. Bates, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and B. D. Science, “Cross-validation: What does it estimate and how well does it do it?,” J Am Stat Assoc, vol. 119, no. 546, pp. 1434–1445, 2025, doi: 10.1080/01621459.2023.2197686.Cross-validation.

H. Zhang et al., “A learning style classification approach based on deep belief network for large- scale online education,” J. Cloud Comput. Adv. Syst. Appl., vol. 9, no. 26, pp. 1–17, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s13677-020-00165-y.

Z. Ge, “Does mismatch between learning media preference and received learning media bring a negative impact on Academic performance? An experiment with e-learners,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 4820, no. May, pp. 1–17, 2019, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1612449.

I. C. Mulaudzi, “Factors affceting students’ academic performances: A case study of the university context,” J. Soc. Sci. Policy Implic., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 18–26, 2023, doi: 10.15640/10.15640/jsspi.v11n1a3.

A. C. Dixit, B. Harshavardhan, B. C. Ashok, M. A. Sriraj, and K. N. Prakasha, “Innovative pedagogical approaches for diverse learning styles and student-centric learning,” J. Eng. Educ. Transform., no. 37, pp. 178–188, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://www.journaleet.in/i

K. Ho and D. Tang, “Students-centeres approachs in teaching and learning: What does it really mean?,” Acta Pedagog. Asiana, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 72–83, 2023, doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218.

S. M. Roldán, J. Marauri, A. Aubert, and R. Flecha, “How inclusive interactive learning environments benefit students without special needs,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no. April, pp. 1–12, 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661427.

A. Sharma and S. Gill, “Inclusive education: Meaning, concepts & objectives,” J. Multidiscip., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 261–271, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://shikshasamvad.com/