An investigation of pre-service teachers’ learning styles in terms of different variables

DOI No: http://dx.doi.org/10.14225/Joh1329

Geliş Tarihi: 19.07.2018 Kabul Tarihi: 31.08.2018

AN INVESTIGATION OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ LEARNING

STYLES IN TERMS OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES

Osman ÖZDEMİR

_{- Onur KÖKSAL}

The main purpose of this study is to determine the learning styles of pre-service teachers taking pedagogic formation education at Selcuk University Education Sciences Institute during 2015-2016 academic years. Survey method was used for the study since it is aimed to determine the learning styles of pre-service teachers taking pedagogic formation education. It is determined whether the learning styles of education faculty students differentiate according to gender and department factors. The study group of this study consisted of 600 students taking pedagogical formation education at Selcuk University Education Sciences Institute. A “Learning Style Questionnaire” developed by David. A. Kolb (1985) and adapted to Turkish by making reliability and validity analyses by Aşkar and Akkoyunlu (1993) was used to determine the learning styles of the prospective teachers. %49,5 of the prospective teachers have accomodator learning style (49,5% n=297). Moreover, 24,3 % (n=146) of the students have divergent, 22,2 % of the students have (n=133) converger and 4% of the students (n=24) have assimilator learning styles. The most important finding for the gender differences shows that the rate of the female prospective teachers with divergent learning style was 30,4 % (n=88) while it was 18 % (n=58) for male prospective teachers.

Key Words: Kolb’s Learning Styles, Prospective Teahers, Learning Styles

1_{Selçuk Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu Yabancı Diller Bölümü Yabancı Diller.}

A.B.D.

2_{Selçuk Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu Mütercim Tercümanlık Bölümü Mütercim}

Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Stillerinin Farklı Değişkenler Açısından

İncelenmesi

ÖZET

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, 2015-2016 akademik yıllarında Selçuk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü'nde pedagojik formasyon eğitimi alan öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stillerini belirlemektir. Araştırma, pedagojik formasyon eğitimi alan öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stillerini belirlemeyi amaçladığı için tarama modelindedir. Araştırmada eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin sahip oldukları öğrenme stillerinin cinsiyet, anabilim dalına göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı test edilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Selçuk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü’nde formasyon eğitimi alan 600 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stillerini belirlemek amacıyla David A. Kolb (1985) tarafından geliştirilen, Aşkar ve Akkoyunlu (1993) tarafından Türkçe’ ye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılan 12 maddelik Kolb Öğrenme Stili Envanteri kullanılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının %49,5’ inin yerleştiren (accomadator) öğrenme stilinde olduğu ( %49,5 n=297) görülmüştür. Öğretmen adaylarının %24,3’ü (n=146) değiştiren (divergent), %22,2’si (n=133) ayrıştıran (converger), %4’ü (n=24) özümseyen (assimilator) öğrenme stilinde oldukları gözlemlenmiştir. Cinsiyet değişkenine dair en önemli bulgu değiştiren öğrenme stiline sahip öğretmen adaylarının oranı kız öğretmen adaylarında %30,4 (n=88) iken, erkek öğretmen adaylarında %18 (n=58) olduğunun gözlenmesidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kolb’un Öğrenme Stilleri, Öğretmen Adayları, Öğrenme Stilleri

Literature Review

Learning style term is based on experiential learning model proposed by Kolb (2005). Kolb has been working on experiential learning since the 1960s. The writer, who explains in a certain period of time, draws attention to the successful disclosure of the individual, the natural consequence of the circle in which the individual lives and reflects these experiences in different ways (Gencel, 2007). The concept of learning style is defined as the way learners prefer to use different stages of the experiential learning model and individual differences in learning (Kolb-Kolb, 2009). Learning Styles Inventory developed by Kolb based on experiential learning theory in 1971 is accepted as one of the most effective and most used tools for measuring individual learning

Kolb argues that people learn from their experiences and the results of these experiences can be evaluated in a reliable way. According to Kolb, new knowledge, skills and attitudes can be gained in four different stages of experiential learning. Students need four different skills in order to be active learners. These skills are; concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation (Köksal & Atalay, 2015). In a similar way, Barsch explores learning styles perceptually visual, auditory, tactile, and motion(Washington, Janosky ve Ann, 1990; 716-717). However, these skills do not identify the learning styles on their own. The learning style of each individual is the component of the four learning skills. In experiential learning model, different learning approaches are identified for each learning style. The best learning ways for concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation are determined as feeling, observation, thinking and doing, respectively (Genç & Kocaarslan, 2013 from Kolb, 1984).

Therefore, various conditions are combined and placed in a learning style. The total scores of the individuals are used in determining the most appropriate learning style of the individuals. These learning styles are defined as Accomodator, Assimilator, Diverger and Converger (Aşkar & Akkoyunlu, 1993; McCarty, 2010) and are detailed in the following part.

Convergers: This learning style involves abstract conceptualization and active experimentation stages. The main characteristics of the assimilator are solving problems, making decisions, the logical analysis of the ideas and systematic planning. The assimilators are successful in problem solving stages and make systematic planning while solving the problems. Learning through experiences plays a crucial role for assimilators. Divergers: This learning style involves concrete experience and reflective observation stages. The main characteristics of divergers are that they have high order thinking skill and they are aware of the meaning and the values. Moreover, they examine the concrete conditions in a lot of ways and organize the relations in a meaningful way. Therefore, they make objective and particular judgments. However, they avoid taking actions and give importance to their own ideas and feelings while organizing their ideas.

Assimilators: This learning style involves abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. The main characteristic of assimilators is to form conceptual models. Assimilators focus on concrete concepts and ideas during learning process. Moreover, they give importance to have accurate and strong theories. They learn by observing and thinking.

Accomodators: This learning style involves concrete experience and active experimentation stages. The main characteristics of accommodators are planning, making decisions and playing part in new experiences. Moreover, they are open-minded and keep pace with the changes easily (Aşkar & Akkoyunlu, 1993; from Kolb, 1984). They learn better by doing and feeling.

The Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to determine the learning styles of pre-service teachers taking pedagogic formation education at Selcuk University Education Sciences Institute during 2015-2016 academic years. Within this scope, the following questions are proposed for this study:

1) What are the learning styles of pre-service teachers taking pedagogic formation education at Selcuk University according to Kolb’s learning style model?

2) Do the learning styles of pre-service teachers differentiate according to gender in terms of Kolb’s learning styles?

3) Do the learning styles of pre-service teachers differentiate according to department factor?

Method

Survey method was used for the research method of the study. Survey models are used to describe the situations of individuals, institutions, groups or sources in the way they are (Karasar, 2006). Reliability was calculated with the scores obtained from 4 basic learning styles and the combined scores with Cronbach-alpha (n = 268), and the reliability coefficient was found to be satisfactory. This study aims to determine whether the learning styles of pre-service teachers differ according to some factors. Survey method was used for the study since it is aimed to determine the learning styles of pre-service teachers taking pedagogic formation education. Moreover, it is determined whether the learning styles of education faculty students differentiate according to gender and department factors.

Study Group

The study group consisted of 600 students taking pedagogical formation education at Selcuk University Education Sciences Institute. The gender and department distribution of the students in sampling group was chosen to be similar. The gender and the department distribution of the students participated in the study are given in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1. Gender Distribution of the Research Sample Gender N % Female Male Total 289 311 600 48,2 51,8 100.0

Table 2. ;Department Distribution of the Research Sample

Departments N %

Turkish Lng. And Literature Physical Education German Lng. And Literature Sociology Music History English Mathematics Arabic Language Biology Total 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 600 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 100

A “Learning Style Questionnaire” developed by David. A. Kolb (1985) and adapted to Turkish by making reliability and validity analyses by Aşkar and Akkoyunlu (1993) was used to determine the learning styles of the prospective teachers. The questionnaire consisted of 12 Likert-type questions. This scale was used to respond to statements from a four-item Likert range. Each option of the questions in the questionnaire represents a learning style. The total points of the questions vary between 12 and 48 (Aşkar & Akkoyunlu, 1993). After this scoring, compound scoring points were calculated. Compound scoring points were obtained as Abstract Conceptualization (AC) - Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE) - Reflective Observation (RO). The scores obtained from this process vary between -36 and +36. The positive points obtained from AC - CE shows that learning is abstract while negative points show that learning is concrete. Similarly, the points obtained from AE - RO indicate that the learning is active or reflective (Aşkar & Akkoyunlu, 1993; Genç & Kocaarslan, 2013). The intersection point of the two scores shows the best learning style for the individual. After collecting the completed questionnaires, all the data were analyzed through the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 2.0). Firstly, frequencies, means, and standard deviations of the learning styles of prospective teachers are given in Tables. Secondly, chi-square independence test, one of the non-parametric tests, was conducted to find an answer for the second sub-question of the study. However, crosstabs technique was used for the third sub-question of the study instead of significance analysis as proposed by Büyüköztürk (2014) since more than 20% of the observation frequency of the two categorical variables was found to be lower than 5 and the tables are interpreted according to given frequency and percentage values.

Findings and Interpretation

In this section, the findings of the sub-questions of the study were presented. The findings on whether the learning styles of prospective teachers differentiate according to student gender were given and interpreted. The findings on how the learning styles of the prospective teachers differentiate according to students’ departments were interpreted according to frequency and percentage values. The learning styles distribution of the prospective teachers is given in Table 3.

Table 3. Learning Styles Distribution of Prospective Teachers Factors f % Learning Style Divergent Assimilator Converger Accomodator Total 146 24 133 297 600 24,3 4,0 22,2 49,5 100

As seen from Table 3, nearly the half of the prospective teachers have accomodator learning style (49,5% n=297). Moreover, 24,3 % (n=146) of the students have divergent, 22,2 % of the students have (n=133) converger and 4% of the students (n=24) have assimilator learning styles.

In the following table, it is aimed to find answer for the second sub-question of the study. For this purpose, the percentage, frequency and chi-square results related to the learning styles of the prospective teachers are given.

Table 4. Chi-Square Test Results Related to Gender Differences of Prospective Teachers

Factor Learning Styles

Gender Divergent Assimilator Converger Accomodator Total

Female N % 88 30,4% 15 5,2% 60 20,8% 126 43,6% 289 100,0% Male N % 58 18,6% 9 2,9% 73 23,5% 171 55,0% 311 100,0% Total N % 146 24,3% 24 4,0% 133 22,2% 297 49,5% 600 100,0% X2_{=14,967, sd=3, p=.002, p<0.05}

Table 4 shows that, the rate of the female prospective teachers with divergent learning style was 30,4 % (n=88) while it was 18 % (n=58) for male prospective teachers. On the other hand, the rate of the female prospective teachers with assimilator learning style was 5,2 % (n=15) while it was 2,9 % (n=9) for males. The rate of the female prospective teachers with converger learning style was 20,8 % (n=60) and 23,5 % (73) for males. Lastly, the rate of female prospective teachers with accomodator learning styles was 43,6 % (n=126) while it was 55,0 % (n=171) for male students. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are some differences between female and male students with regard to learning styles and Chi-square test results showed that this difference was statistically significant [x2 _{(3)= 14,967, p=.002, p< .05].}

Table 5 and 6 present the detailed distribution of learning styles of female and male students.

Table 5. The Learning Styles Distribution of Male Students

Gender Departments Divergent Assimilator Converger Accomodator Total

MALE Turkish Lang. and Lit. 7 0 10 14 31 P.E. 10 0 3 17 30 German Language and Literature 4 1 4 20 29 Sociology 5 1 11 16 33 Music 7 0 5 18 30 History 5 3 6 16 30 English 5 1 9 17 32 Mathematics 4 1 7 21 33 Arabic Lang. 6 0 11 16 33 Biology 5 2 7 16 30 Total 58 9 73 171 311

Table 6. The Learning Styles Distribution of Female Students

Gender Departments Divergent Assimilator Converger Accomodator Total

FEMALE Turkish Lang. and Literature 13 4 2 10 29 P.E. 3 2 11 14 30 German Lang.and Lit. 8 3 4 16 31 Sociology 11 0 7 9 27 Music 7 1 9 13 30 History 11 2 4 13 30 English 8 1 7 12 28 Mathematics 9 1 7 10 27 Arabic Language 11 0 4 12 27 Biology 7 1 5 17 30 Total 88 15 60 126 289

In Table 7, the correlation between the learning styles of prospective teachers and their departments are examined using crosstabs.

Table 7. The Correlation between the Learning Styles of Pre-Service Teachers and Their Departments

Factor Learning Styles

Programs Divergent Assimilator Converger Accomodat

or Total Turkish Lang. N % 20 33,3% 4 6,7% 12 20,0% 24 40,0% 60 100,0% P.E N % 13 21,7% 2 3,3% 14 23,3% 31 51,7% 60 100,0% German Language. N % 12 20,0% 4 6,7% 8 13,3% 36 60,0% 60 100,0% Sociology N % 16 26,7% 1 1,7% 18 30,0% 25 41,7% 60 100,0% Music N % 14 23,3% 1 1,7% 14 23,3% 31 51,7% 60 100,0% History N % 16 26,7% 5 8,3% 10 16,7% 29 48,3% 60 100,0% English N % 13 21,7% 2 3,3% 16 26,7% 29 48,3% 60 100,0% Mathema tic. N % 13 21,7% 2 3,3% 14 23,3% 31 51,7% 60 100,0% Arabic Lang. N % 17 28,3% 0 0,0% 15 25,0% 28 46,7% 60 100,0% Biology N % 12 20,0% 3 5,0% 12 20,0% 33 55,0% 60 100,0% Total N 146 24 133 297 600

As can be seen from Table 7, the percentage distribution of the students studying different departments were as follows: For Turkish Language and Literature 33,3 % (n=20) divergent, 6,7 % (n=4) assimilator, 20 % (n=12) converger and 40 % (n=24) accomodator; for Physical Education 21,7 % (n= 13) divergent, 3,3 % (n=2) assimilator, 23 % (n=14) converger, 51,7 % (n=31) accomodator learning style; for German Language and Literature

20 % (n=12) divergent, 6,7 %(n=4) assimilator, 13,3 %(n=8) converger and 60 % (n=36) accomodator; for sociology program 26,7 % (n=16) divergent, 1,7 % (n=1)assimilator 30,0 % converger (n=18) and 41,7 % (n=25) accomodator; for Music program 23,3 % (n=14) divergent, 1,7 % (n=1) assimilator, 23,3 % (n=14) converger and 51,7 % (n=31) accomodator; for History program 26,7 % (n=16) divergent, 8,3 % (n=5) assimilator 16,7 % (n=10) converger and 48,3 % (n=29) accomodator; for English program 21,7 % divergent, (n=13) 3,3 % (n=2) assimilator, 26,7 % (n=16) converger and 48,3 % (n=29) accomodator; for Mathematics program %21,7 (n=13) divergent, 3,3 % (n=2) assimilator, 23,3 % (n=14) converger and 51,7 % (n=31) accomodator; for Arabic Language and Literature 28,3 % (n=17) divergent, 0,0 % (n=0) assimilator, 25,0 % (n=15) converger and 46,7 % (n=28) accomodator; for biology program 20,0 % (n=12) divergent, 5,0 % (n=3) assimilator, 20,0 % (n=12) converger and 55,0 % (n=33) accomodator.

However, chi-square test results about the research problem are not given since more than 20% of the observation frequency of the two categorical variables was found to be lower than 5.

Results and Discussion

The total distribution of the students studying at Selcuk University and taking pedagogic formation education shows that the students had accomodator learning styles dominantly (49,5 %). Moreover, the learning styles of the prospective students were found as 24,3 % divergent, 22,2 % converger, 4 % assimilator. These results show that the prospective teachers learn by using their existing experiences. They like making new plans, implementing their plans and gaining new experiences. Moreover, they use their feeling instead of logical analysis and they use individual knowledge instead of technical analysis while solving problems. The strengths of these students are that they are practical, have leadership and like taking risks. On the other hand, the weaknesses of them are that they act without thinking; they do not finish their duties on time, have unpractical plans and do not have target-specific aims. These people need to improve their own learning styles by searching for new chances, keeping pace with the changes, directing and influencing the other people, interacting with people making more practice on personal involvement (Durukan, 2013; Ekici, 2013).

The results indicated that both female and male students had accomodator learning style most among the Kolb’s Learning Styles Model. On the contrary, they preferred

assimilator learning style at the lowest level. However, the evaluation results show that the male prospective students preferred converger and accomodator learning styles more than female prospective students. On the contrary, divergent and assimilator learning styles of female prospective students were at higher level compared to male students. This gender difference was found statistically significant. Therefore, gender factor was found to be important in determining the dominant learning styles of the students.

In a study which is studied by Çelik & Şahin, (2011) it was determined that most of the prospective teachers of Physical Education and Sports Teaching have the learning style of "Assimilator" and at least "Accomodator". According to the research, there was no significant difference in the learning styles and components of the Physical Education and Sport Teacher Teacher candidates compared to the grade level and grade level of the students (Çelik & Şahin, 2011). As a result of the research done on Ankara University Faculty of Education Sciences Computer and Instructional Technologies department students, it was ound that 46.8% had a Divergent Learning Style and that there was a significant difference between learning styles according to their age. There was no significant relationship between the students' genders, the high school graduation they graduated and the learning styles according to the high school branches they graduated (Numanoğlu & Şen, 2007). In another study it was found that 54.7% of the teacher candidates had an assimilator, 28.3% had a divergent learning style, 13.2% had converger, and 3.8% had accommodator learning styles. According to the findings obtained, the learning styles of the individuals do not differ according to the gender and the registered teacher education program. In addition, as a result of research, the Internet is the most often preferred ways of accessing information among teacher candidates in different learning styles, and the ways in which individuals in different learning styles prefer to access information are similar (Genç & Kocaarslan, 2013). In a study on Elementary Education Classroom Teacher candidates studied by Hasırcı Kaf (2006), findings revealed that nearly half of the students (41.1%) were assimilated and 33.2% preferred the classifying learning style. It turns out that dominant learning styles do not differ at the class level.

These results are found to be important for lecturers studying at teacher training institutions for planning their classes in a way that they give importance to learning styles of the students. Therefore, they can make a great contribution to students’ effective and practical learning through their lives and so students can develop positive attitudes towards learning and the classes.

REFERENCES

Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb Öğrenme Stı̇lı̇ Envanterı̇. Eğitim ve Bilim, 17(87).

Çelik, F., & Şahin, H. (2011). Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği Öğretmen Adaylarının Cinsiyet ve Öğrenim Gördükleri Sınıf Düzeyleri Bakımından Öğrenme Stillerinin İncelenmesi (Makü Örneği). Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 23–38.

Durukan, E. (2013). Türkçe Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Stilleri ve Öğrenme Stratejileri Arasındaki İlişki. International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume, 8(1), 1307–1319.

Ekici, G. (2013). Gregorc ve Lolb Öǧrenme Stili Modellerine Göre Öǧretmen Adaylarının Öǧrenme Stillerinin Cinsiyet ve Genel Akademik Başarı Açısından İncelenmesi. Egitim ve Bilim, 38(167), 211–225.

Gencel, İ. E. (2007). Kolb’un Deneyimsel Öğrenme Kuramına Dayalı Öğrenme Stilleri Envanteri-III’ü Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 120–139.

Genç, M., & Kocaarslan, M. (2013). Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Stı̇llerinin Çeşı̇tlı̇ Değı̇şkenler Açısından İncelenmesı̇: Bartın Ünı̇versı̇tesı̇ Örneğı̇. Ürkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 172(172), 327–344.

Hasırcı Kaf , Özlem (2006). Sınıf Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stilleri: Çukurova Üniversitesi Örneği. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 2 (1), 15-25.

Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Kayes, C. (2005). Internal Validity and Reliability of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory Version 3 (1999). Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 249-257.

Kolb, A.Y., and D.A. Kolb. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach To management learning, education, and development. In The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development, Ed. S.J. Armstrong and C.V. Fukami. London: Sage

Kolb, A.Y.,& Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1: 2005 Technical Specifications. Haygroup: Experience Based Learning SystemsInc.

Köksal, O., & Atalay, B. (2015). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri. Konya: Eğitim Yayınevi.

McCarty, M. (2010). Experiental Learning Theory: From Theory To Practice. Journal Of Business &Economics Research, 8(5), 131-139.

Numanoğlu, G., & Şen, B. (2007). Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stilleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 8(2), 129–148.

Washington, N.D., E. Janosky ve F.Ann (1990). Learning style preferences and the satisfaciton and performances of student groups. Academic Medicine, 65, 14:716-720.