Assessing learning styles of student teachers at federal college of education Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 267 - 271

WCPCG-2011

Assessing learning styles of student teachers at federal college of

education

Aijaz Ahmed Gujjara * Rabia Tabassumb

aLecturer, Federal College of Education, islamabad, Pakistan, 00923335177748 bAssociate Professor,Department of Education, Northern University Nowshera, Pakistan

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine learning styles of student teachers at Federal College of Education in order to develop teaching strategies in them. Another purpose of this study was to find out if there is a significant difference on learning preferences among student teachers class wise and gender wise. Grasha-Riechmann learning style survey (LSS) was used to assess the learning styles preferences of student teachers this (LSS) was divided into six learning styles (independent, avoidant, collaborative, dependent, competitive, and participant. Population of this study was students at Federal College of Education. Sample of this study was randomly selected 230 student teachers. Data were collected from the student teachers by means of (LSS).Data was analyzed by using (SPSS) in terms of mean, independent sample t-test and ANOVA, the reliability of the inventory was 0.85 (Cronbach's Alpha). Results suggested that student teachers at Federal College of E ducation are low on independent, dependent participant learning styles, high on avoidant, collaborative and competitive learning style. Gender wise female student teachers are significantly better on all dimensions of (LSS) except avoidant and on class wise comparison there is a significant difference on all the dimensions of (LSS) among the classes.

Key words: Learning styles, Student teachers, Dependent, Independent, Avoidant, Collaborative

1. Introduction

The most important issue in the learner-centered pedagogical setting at present is the learning approach of the students. It has been the focus of attention in many researches that whether learning approaches affect educational achievement in the field of literature or not. Researchers have been of the view that the learning output will definitely augment provided that learning materials and modules are modified in accordance with various types of students (Arslan & Babadogan, 2005; Cengizhan, 2007; Liegle & Janicki, 2006; Yazici, 2005). For that reason every teacher wishes to discover about learners' learning approaches before preparing resources and manipulating learning activities, designed for teaching. The intention of present research is to decide the learning approaches of learners with the intention of developing teaching tactics for prearranged for these learners. It would be very pertinent to define a learning approach first for presenting the context of current study. Brief assessment of various learning approaches and their line of attack will be done to find out and to present justification for choosing Grasha-Riechmann Learning Style Inventory.Point of view of a researcher plays a major role in defining a learning approach. Kolb is of the view that learning approach indicates the thinking behind it. A prototype of a learning cycle was employed by Kolb to demonstrate that how understanding is interpreted into concepts, which, consequently are utilized as guides in the selection of innovative experiences. Kolb in his theory of experiential learning defines learning as a process which involves four-stages, and the first stage is real experience stage. These real experiences at stage one provide basis for interpretations and contemplations, which in succession show the way to the

ELSEVIER

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology,

Counselling and Guidance.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.053

development of abstract ideas and oversimplification. At the end these abstract ideas or assumptions lead towards the formation of novel experiences (Burd & Buchanan, 2004).

According to James and Gardner (1995) an individual constructs his learning approach on the basis of his response to the general learning atmosphere. Grasha and Riechmann (1974) were of the view that learning approaches are personal traits which have an effect on a learner's capability to obtain information, to work together with friends and the teacher, and to contribute in learning experiences. Three vital components of the classroom, learners' attitude in the direction of learning, their point of view about their instructors and classmates, and their response to classroom practices, are very much linked with the model of Grasha and Reichmann.

A learning approach may possibly be identified as a "distinctive and habitual manner of acquiring knowledge, skills or attitudes through study or experience" (Sadler-Smith, 1996). Mumford (1995) presented the idea that preference given to different learning approaches depends on the acknowledgment that different individuals prefer a learning approach after comparing it with the other. It was observed by Lang, Stinson, Kavanagh, Liu, & Basile (1999) that three very common learning approaches in the field of literature are: psychological types, cognitive types and social/interactive types. In all these approaches description of learning is the core concept. Supporters of these approaches contain various opinions about learning process in people.

Learning Style Inventory, presented by Grasha and Riechmann, was chosen as a tool just because it is one of the common communication approach model which is extensively utilized by many investigators in the field of literature. One more justification behind selecting this is the questionnaire entries of this tool which are unswerving associated with the classroom practices and the communications of instructors and learners. For that reason data gathered from learners with the help of this tool reveals learners' observations and performances in the class.

Learning Style Inventory, presented by Grasha and Riechmann advertises perception of learning in an extensive perspective, straddling six categories: competitive, collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent. Spirited learners learn stuff with the intention of performing better than others in the class. Collaborative learners believe that they can gain knowledge by sharing thoughts and talents. Avoidant learners are not passionate about educational substance and attending the class. Participants are noble residents in the class. They are enthusiastic to accomplish much of the mandatory and voluntary lessons requirements. Dependent students demonstrate slight intellectual inquisitiveness and they gain knowledge of only what is necessary. Their point of view about instructor and classmates is as basis of organization and support and rummage around for authority figures. Independent students are keen on thinking for themselves and are self-assured about their learning capacities. They have a preference to learn the substance which they feel is vital.

Objectives of the Study

This study was based on the following objectives:

1. To find out the learning styles of the student-teachers.

2. To compare the learning styles of the student-teachers gender wise and class wise. Population and Sampling

The population of the study consisted of all the student-teachers of Federal College of Education H-9, Islamabad. Two hundred and thirty student-teachers from Federal College of Education H-9, Islamabad were randomly selected as sample of the study.

Research Instrument Development and Data Collection

Since the study was descriptive in nature, survey approach was considered appropriate to collect the data. For the purpose, questionnaire on five-point (Likert) scale was developed. The questionnaire was validated through pilot testing on 50 students-teachers and reliability of the questionnaire was found to be 0.85.

Administration of Research Tool and Data Collection

The finalized questionnaire was administered on sample student-teachers personally.

Data Analysis

The data collected through questionnaire was coded and analyzed through SPSS XII, mean scores and Independent sample t- test and ANOVA were computed.

Results

Data collected through the questionnaire was analyzed in light of objectives of the study. Gender-wise and program-wise distribution was calculated in percentages. To infer the significance of results, t-test and ANOVA were applied. The findings drawn from the data analysis are given below.

_Table 1: Showing the gender-wise distribution of sample_

Frequency Percentage

28 12.2 202 87.8

230 100

Gender Male Female Total

Table 1 makes it clear that 12.2% respondents were male and 87.8 % respondents were female. So majority of the respondents were female.

_Table 2: Showing the program-wise distribution of sample_

Program Frequency Percentage

B. Ed. 33 14.3

B. S. Ed. 43 18.7

M. Ed. 21 9.1

M. A. (Education) 103 44.8

Diploma 30 13.1

Total 230 100

Table 2 shows that 14.3 % respondents were from B. Ed, 18.7% were from B. S. Ed, 9.1% respondents were from M. Ed, 44.8% respondents were from M A, (Education) and 13% respondents were from diploma. Majority of the respondents were from M A. (Education).

Table 3: Showing descriptive statistics of all the respondents

Dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Deviation

Dependent 230 15 40 32.0174 4.41313

Collaborative 230 17 40 31.7391 4.38753

Competitive 230 17 40 30.9913 4.15107

Participant 230 17 40 30.9261 3.90708

Independent 230 17 40 30.1087 4.40339

Avoidant 230 15 40 26.3696 4.24654

Overall 230 115 239 182.152 17.6692

Table 3 shows mean scores of student-teachers on all dimensions of learning style scale in descending order highest mean score was found as 32.0174 which is on dependent learning style and lowest mean score of 26.3696 was found on avoidant learning style.

Table 4: Showing the gend er-wise comparison of respondents on different learning styles

Dimensions Gender N df Mean Standard St. Error of t-value P value

deviation Mean

Independent Male 28 228 27.7143 4.25882 .80484 0.002

Female 202 30.4406 4.32957 .30463 3.129

Avoidant Male 28 228 26.7857 4.19309 .79242 0.552 0.581

Female 202 26.3119 4.26098 .29980

Collaborative Male 28 228 29.3214 4.15490 .78520 3.172 0.002

Female 202 32.0743 4.32273 .30415

Dependent Male 28 228 30.0357 4.31605 .81566 2.566 0.011

Female 202 32.2921 4.36618 .30720

Competitive Male 28 228 29.1071 4.18409 .79072 2.550 0.011

Female 202 31.2525 4.08865 .28768

Participant Male 28 228 29.5000 4.34187 .82054 2.076 0.039

Female 202 31.1238 3.81272 .26826

Overall Male 28 228 172.4643 19.68546 3.72020 3.156 0.002

Female 202 183.4950 16.99261 1.19560

It is clear from table 4 that the mean score of female prospective teachers is significantly better than their male counter parts on the dimensions of independent, collaborative, dependent, competitive, participant and over all, because the mean score of female is higher on these dimensions and p- value is less than 0.05 on all these dimensions, while on the other side on the dimension of avoidant learning style the mean score of male prospective teachers is higher but that difference is not significant because the p value is greater than 0.05 on this dimensions.

Table 5: ANOVA showing significance of difference among learning styles

of Squares df Mean Square F-value Significance

195.548 4 48.887 2.591 0.038

4244.734 225 18.865

4440.283 229

498.158 4 124.540 7.716 0.001

3631.429 225 16.140

4129.587 229

238.826 4 59.706 3.222 0.013

4169.522 225 18.531

4408.348 229

390.491 4 97.623 5.398 0.001

4069.439 225 18.086

4459.930 229

241.118 4 60.279 3.661 0.007

3704.865 225 16.466

3945.983 229

338.837 4 84.709 6.037 0.001

3156.907 225 14.031

3495.743 229

9765.419 4 2441.355 8.899 0.001

61728.255 225 274.348

71493.674 229

Dimensions Independent

Avoidant

Collaborative

Dependent

Competitive

Participant

Over All

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Between

Groups

Within

Groups

Table 5 indicates F - Value is higher and p-value is lower than 0.05 on all the dimensions of learning style scale, therefore a significant difference among the student-teachers of different programs was found on their learning styles.

Conclusions

On the basis of findings of the study following conclusions were drawn: 1. Dependent learning style was found to be best learning style for the student-teachers of federal College of

Education, Islamabad.

2. Female student-teachers were learning significantly better than their male counterparts on all dimensions of learning style scale except avoidant learning style.

3. Student-teachers of B. Ed., B. S. Ed, M. Ed, M A (Education) and Diploma significantly differ on all the dimensions of learning style.

References

Arslan, B., & Babadogan, C. (2005). ilkögretim 7. ve 8. Sinif Ögrencilerinin Ögrenme Stillerinin Akademik Ba§ari Düzeyi, Cinsiyet ve Yas ile ili§kisi. Eurasiao Jcuroal cf Emueaticoal Researel , 35-48.

Bose, K. (2003). An e-Learning Experience-A Written Analysis Based on My Experience in an e-Learning Pilot Project. Caapus-Wime Iofcraatico hysteas , 22 (5), 193-199.

Burd, B. A., & Buchanan, L. E. (2004). Teaching the Teachers: Teaching and Learning Online. Refereoee herviees Review , 404-412.

Cengizhan, S. (2007). Proje Temelli ve Bilgisayar Destekli Ögretim Tasanmlarimn; Bagimli, Bagimsiz ve i§birlikli Ögrenim Stillerine Sahip Ögrencilerin Akademik Ba§arilarina ve Ögrenme Kaliciligina Etkisi. Türk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5 (3), 377-401.

Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaeliog witl Style: a Praetieae Ruide tc Eolaoeiog Learoiog by Uomerstaodiog Teaeliog aodLearoiog Styles. Pittsburgh: Alliance Publishers.

Grasha, A. F., & Riechmann, S. W. (1974). A Rational Approach to Developing and Assessing the

Construct Validity of a Student Learning Style Scales Instrument. Tle Journal cf Psyelcdgy, 87, 213223.

James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning Styles: Implications for Distance Learning. New Direeticos fcr adult aod Ccotiouiog Emueatico (67), 19-32.

Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Kavanagh, F., Liu, Y., & Basile, M. L. (1999). Learning Styles of Deaf Collage Students and Instructors' Teaching Emphases. Jcuroal cf Deaf Studies aodDeaf Emueatico , 16-27.

Liegle, J. O., & Janicki, T. N. (2006). The Effect of Learning Styles on The Navigation Needs of Web-based Learners. Ccaputers io Huaao Belavicr , 885-898.

Mumford, A. (1995). Putting Learning Styles to Work: An Integrated Approach. Iodustriae aod Ccaaereiae Traioiog , 28-35.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Learning Styles: a Holistic Approach. Jcuroal cf Eurcpeao Iodustrial Traioiog , 29-36.

Yazici, H. J. (2005). A Study of Collaborative Learning Style and Team Learning Performance. Emueatico + Traioiog, 47 (3), 216-229.