 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 2, Article 4 (Dec., 2012) |
The present study, which is a descriptive one, in of relational screening model among the screening models. Single and relational screening models were utilized in it (Karasar, 2007). The single screening model was used to determine the learning styles and disposition to think critically whereas the relational screening model was used to determine the relationship between learning style and disposition to think critically.
Universe and sample of the study
The universe of the study was Primary Education Division of Educational Faculty of Adnan Menderes University in Aydin, a city on western part of Turkey. Sample of the study was chosen from the students attending on the second, third and fourth grades of Department of Science Teaching. The sample of the study included the students who were present in the lesson during the time on which the study was performed and who agreed on participating in the study. A total of 330 participants were included in the study whose 63% (n = 207) was female and 37% (n = 123) was male.
Data required for reaching the determined aims of the present study were obtained from the Individual Information Form consisting of 8 questions along with “Inventory of Learning Styles” and “Scale of Disposition to Think Critically”.
The first part of the data collection tool contains the “Inventory of Learning Styles” developed by Kolb (1985) and then translated into Turkish by Askar and Akkoyunlu (1993). The inventory consists of 12 items with four options requesting the individuals to rank four learning styles best defining their own learning styles. Each of four options in each item in the inventory reflects one learning style. These are, (1) Concrete Experience (CE), (2) Reflective Observation (RO), (3) Abstract conceptualization (AC), and (4) Active Experience (AE). The points from the inventory are grouped according to the experimental learning theory as divergent style based on reflective observation and concrete experiences, assimilator learning style based on reflective observation and abstract conceptualization, convergent learning style based on abstract conceptualization and active experience, and accommodative learning style based on active experience and concrete experience. As a consequence of response to each option by the participants, total point for one option ranges between 12 and 48. Reliability co-efficients of sub-scales of the Inventory of Learning Styles was found by Askar and Akkoyunlu (1993) as 0.58 for active experience, 0.70 for reflective observation, 0.71 for concrete conceptualization, 0.65 for active experience, 0.77 for concrete-abstract experience, and 0.76 for active-reflective. In the present study, reliability of the scale was re-estimated and was found to be 0.63 for concrete experience, 0.69 for reflective observation, 0.72 for abstract conceptualization, 0.65 for active experience, 0.72 for abstract-concrete experience, and 0.71 for active-reflective.
The second part of the data collection tool contains the “California Scale of Disposition to Think Critically”. The original version of the scale developed by Facione and Facione in 1992 consists of 75 items and 7 sub-scales ((Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, Ganien, 1995). The scale originally created in English was translated into Turkish and its validity, reliability studies were carried out by Kökdemir (2003). The new scale obtained at the end of the analyses consists of six sub-scales and a total of 51 items. The sub-scales are as follows: analyticalness sub-scale of 10 items, sub-scale of open-mindedness of 12 items, sub-scale of curiousness of 9 items, sub-scale of self-confidence of 7 items, sub-scale of seeking the truth of 7 items, and sub-scale of being systematical of 6 items. For each item in the scale, it was opted to give 6 points to the option of “I absolutely agree”, 5 points to the option of “I agree”, 4 points to the option of “I partially agree”, 3 points to the option of “I partially don’t agree”, 2 points to the option of “I don’t agree” and 1 point to the option of “I don’t agree at all”. Reliability co-efficient of the sub-scales was 0.75 for the sub-scale of analyticalness, 0.75 for the sub-scale of open-mindedness, 0.78 for the sub-scale of curiousness, 0.77 for the sub-scale of self-confidence, 0.61 for the sub-scale of seeking for truth and 0.63 for the sub-scale of being systematical. Internal consistency of the scale as a whole was 0,88. Reliability of the scale of disposition to think critically was re-estimated for the present study and it was found to be 0.59 for the sub-scale of analyticalness, 0.61 for the sub-scale of open-mindedness, 0.69 for the sub-scale of curiousness, 0.74 for the sub-scale of self-confidence, 0.58 for the sub-scale of seeking for the truth, and 0.53 for the sub-scale of being systematical. For the present study as a whole, reliability co-efficient of the scale of disposition to think critically was found to be 0,79. For estimating the points of the scale of California Dispositions to Think Critically, certain points were determined for each sub-scale. Accordingly, it was considered that disposition to think critically was low for the participants with 40 points in each scale and that those with 50 points or above for each scale were disposed to think critically. Additionally, for the whole scale of California Disposition to think Critically it was stated that the disposition to think critically was low for the participants with less than 240 points (40 x 6), intermediate for those with 240 to 300 points, and high for those with 300 points or above (50 x 6) (Kökdemir, 2003).
Data from the present study were analysed by SPSS software, v.19 and percentages and frequencies of the data were documented. Chi-square test, T test, one-way variance analysis were done and Tukey’s test was used to determined among which groups significant differences exist. Furthermore, correlation co-efficients were also calculated. Significance level was set at 0.05 for the analysis of data.
