A review on learning styles and critically thinking disposition of pre-service science teachers in terms of miscellaneous variables

In the view of findings obtained in the present study, it was found that there was no statistically significant difference between learning style and sex of the pre-service teachers. Distribution ratios of female and male pre-service science teachers by their learning style are similar. In other words, it is concluded that sex isn’t an important variable in determining the learning style. The fact that there was no difference between the pre-service teacher in sex indicates that preferences and privileges in learning don’t vary by sex. There are studies in the literature supporing this study finding (Gusentine and Keim, 1996; Truluck & Courtenay, 1999; Rudd, Baker and Hoover, 2000; Lukow, 2002; Jones, Reichard and Mokhtari, 2003; Kiliç and Karadeniz, 2004; Uzuntiryaki, Bilgin and Geban, 2004; Demirbas and Demirkan, 2007; Gürsoy, 2008; Denizoglu, 2008; Bahar and Sülün, 2011). It was found, however, as a result of the present study that female and male pre-service teachers usually preferred the divergent (43.3%) and assimilator (33.0%) learning style. It was also found that ratio of pre-service teachers with accommodative (13.0%) and convergent (10.6%) learning style was lower. Parallel to findings of the study, it was found in a study by Bahar and Sülün (2011) on pre-service science teachers that the pre-service teachers usually had divergent (39.7%) and assimilator (34.2%) learning style while ratio of those with convergent (15.2) and accommodative (10.2%) learning style was lower. Similarly, it was determined in a study by Bahar, Özen and Gülaçti (2009) that learning style of the students didn’t vary by their sex while the pre-service teacher most frequently preferred the divergent learning style (43.6%) followed by assimilator (29.3%) learning style and that rate of preferring accommodative (16.3%) and convergent (10.8%) learning styles was lower. In another study by Denizoglu (2008), it was found that the pre-service science teacher most frequently preferred the divergent learning style. In this context, it may be suggested that the findings of the studies support each other. On the other hand, studies on pre-service teachers by Wynd and Bozman (1996), Matthewes (1996), Ergür (2000), Heffler (2001), and Güven and Kürüm (2007) indicate that there is a significant difference between learning style and sex of the students. Reason for the fact that findings of the present study are conflicted with those studies mentioned above might be that sampling groups were different.

It was found that pre-service science teachers’ points of learning style didn’t show statistically significant difference by their grade. Additionally, as a result of percentage and frequency analysis on point averages for sub-scale of learning styles of pre-service science teachers, it was found that the pre-service science teachers preferred divergent learning style in grade 1, assimilator learning style in grade 2, and convergent learning style in the third and fourth grades. Based on the findings obtained it may be suggested that pre-service science teachers of grade 1, 3 and 4 preferring the divergent learning style are those with skills of mental analysis, planning systematically and deductive reasoning, who pay attention to the details while trying to comprehend the whole from the parts and with tendency to miss the focus and a confused mental structure, being successful in new ideas, simulations, laboratory duties and practical application and that the pre-service science teachers of grade 2 preferring the assimilator learning style are those having ability to understand comprehensive information and to create theoretical models, being successful in focusing on abstract concepts, preferring systematic, ordered, logical and detailed information and preferring visual presentations and lesson explanations. No study was found in the literature in which learning style of the pre-service science teachers was examined by their grade. However, studies exist in the literature examining the learning style of the pre-service class teachers by their grade (Durdukoca Firat and Aribas, 2010; Karademir and Tezel, 2010; Can, 2011). It was found in a study by Durdukoca Firat and Aribas (2010) that first grade students had assimilator learning style (50%) and third grade students had divergent learning style (45.3%). Can (2011) in his study on pre-service class teachers, concluded that first and second grade pre-service teachers had assimilator learning style whereas third and fourth grade pre-service class teachers had convergent learning style. Additionally, Kolb’s Inventory of Learning Styles was applied by Güven and Kürüm (2007) to 215 students in Educational Faculty and it was concluded that learning style of the pre-service teachers differentiated as their grade increased. This finding which contrast to that of the present study may have resulted from the fact that different sampling groups were studies in both studies.

When the points of learning style of the pre-service science teachers were examined by their age group, it was concluded that there was no statistically significant differences. However, it was found that pre-service science teachers aged 17-20 years usually distributed on assimilator learning style (38.5%) and those ages 21-24 years usually distributed on convergent (48.7%) learning style. Based on these results, it may be suggested that the pre-service teachers gain qualifications of thinking ability, being aware of values and meanings, focusing on abstract concepts and ideas as well as features of decision making, logical and systematical planning of the ideas as their age increase. No study was found in the literature examining learning style of pre-service science teachers by their age groups. On the other hand, Can (2011) found in his study on pre-service class teachers that there was no statistically significant relationship between their learning style and age group and that age groups of 17-19 and 20-22 usually had assimilator learning style whereas pre-service class teachers aged 23 or above usually had assimilator and divergent learning styles. This result is also supported by study findings of Ergür (2000) and Taylor (2000). Furthermore, Ergür (2010) in his study on effects of age group on learning style of students in Faculty of Foreing Languages found that the students aged 17-23 years preferred the assimilator learning style whereas those aged 23 or above preferred divergent learning style. Considering these results and findings of the present study together, it may be suggested that pre-service teachers have divergent learning style as their age increase.

Based on the results of the present study, it was determined that total points for disposition to think critically of pre-service science teachers didn’t show statistically significant differences by sex variable. Additionally, points for pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t show significant differences by sex variable in the sub-scales of being analytical, curiousness, self-confidence, seeking for the truth, and being systematical whereas they showed significant differences by sex in sub-scale of open-mindedness and this difference was in favor of female pre-service science teachers. In the literature, there are studies finding that pre-service science teachers’ total points for disposition to think critically didn’t show significant differences by sex (Kürüm, 2002; Lea-ver-Dunn et al., 2002; Loken, 2005; Myers and Dyer, 2006; Ekinci and Aybek, 2010; Tümkaya, 2011). In this context, it may be suggested that findings of those studies support those of the current study. On the other hand, studies on university students by Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, Ganien (1995); Rudd, Baker and Hoover (2000); Hamurcu, Günay and Akamca Özyilmaz (2005); Gülveren (2007), Besoluk and Önder (2010) indicate that there were significant differences between total points for disposition to think critically and sex of the students in favor of female students.

Examining the pre-service teachers’s sub-scale points for disposition to think critically in terms of their sex, Genç (2008) concluded that pre-service teachers’s sub-scale points for disposition to think critically showed significant differences by their sex in sub-scales of open-mindedness and curiousness. Furthermore, examining the differences in disposition to think critically between sexes, Facione, Giancarlo, Facione and Gainen (1995) found that female students were much more tended than males for cognitive maturity and being open-mindedness whereas males were much more tended to think analytically. In this context, it may be suggested that the findings from sub-scale of open-mindedness support the findings of the current study. Tümkaya (2011), however, found a significant difference between disposition to think critically between sexes of the students of science teaching which was in favor of female students in the sub-scale of being analytical and being in favor of male students in sub-scale of curiousness.

It was found that total points of pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t show statistically significant difference by their grade. Additionally, points of pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t show significant differences in the sub-scales of being analytical, open-mindedness, curiousness, self-confidence and seeking for the truth whereas showed significant difference in sub-scale of being systematical. It was concluded that the difference found was between first and second grade students of science teaching and in favor of pre-service science teachers during their first year of education. When the literature was reviewed, it was seen that total points of pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t vary significantly by their grade in a study by Kirisçioglu, Basdas and Basöncül (2007). In another study by Ekinci and Aybek (2010), it was found that total points of pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t vary by their grade. In this context, it may be suggested findings from several studies support each other. However, in a study by Genç (2008) found that there was a statistically significant difference in pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically between sub-scale points of the sub-scale of being analytical by their grade. Tümkaya (2011) found a significant difference in pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically by their grade in sub-scale of self-confidence which was in favor of students at fourth grade. Reason for the fact that findings from that study was different from those in the current one may have been due to that different sampling groups were studied in both studies.

It was found that total points for pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically didn’t show statistically significant difference by age groups. Reason for this may be that the pre-service teachers were in different age groups. Moreover, it was concluded that sub-scale point for pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically in the sub-scale of open-mindedness showed statistically significant difference by age groups. When the literature was reviewed, limited number of studies were found examining the pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically by their age groups. It was found in the study by Kürüm (2002) that pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically showed difference as their age increased and that the younger students’ disposition to think critically was higher. Thus, findings of that study might be suggested to be conflicted to those of the current study. It may be considered that the conflict mentioned may have originated from the fact that different sampling groups were studied in both studies.

As a result of the current study, a low level of positive significant relationship was found between pre-service science teachers’ learning style and their disposition to think critically. A low level of negative relationship was found between learning style and disposition to think critically for the pre-service teachers with divergent learning style. A low level of positive relationship was found between learning style and disposition to think critically for the pre-service teachers with accommodative learning style. When the findings concerning the third sub-problem were evaluated together, it may be suggested that there was a significant relationship between learning style and disposition to think critically of the pre-service teachers. In the literature, limited numbers of studies were found examining the relationship between pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically and their learning style. (Güven and Kürüm, 2008; Tümkaya, 2011). In a study by Güven and Kürüm (2008) conducted to determine the relationship between pre-service science teachers’ disposition to think critically and their learning style, California Scale of Dispositions to Think Critically and Kolb’s Inventory of Learning Styles were used. As a result of the study, it was found that there was a relationship between learning style and disposition to think critically of the pre-service science teachers. In this context, the findings from the studies may be suggested to support each other. Additionally, there are studies in the literature conducted on different sampling groups. It was found in a study by Torres and Cano (1995) on students of agriculture faculty that there was a positive relationship (r = 0.36) between learning style and disposition to think critically of the students. Similarly, the findings of a study by Suliman (2006) on nursery students also shows that there is relationship to some degree between learning style and disposition to think critically of the students. However, in another study by Rudd, Baker and Hoover (2000) on students of agriculture faculty, it was concluded that there wasn’t a significant relationship between the students’ total points of thinking critically and points of the students with field-dependent and field-independent learning style. It may be suggested that findings from that study are conflicted to those from the present one. It may be considered that this conflict may have resulted from the fact that different sampling groups were studied in both studies. A larger sampling should be done in order to make sound comments about the topic.