Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 2, Article 6 (Dec., 2015) Sedat KARAÇAM and Azize DİGİLLİ BARAN The effects of field dependent/field independent cognitive styles and motivational styles on students’ conceptual understanding about direct current circuits Previous Contents Next

Data Analysis and Results

Students were categorized as FI, FINT and FD based on students’ scores measured by GEFT. According to Bahar (2003a), students whose scores are below the score calculated as a quarter of standard deviation is subtracted from the mean score are defined as FD. On the other hand, students whose scores are above the score calculated as a quarter of standard deviation is added to the mean score are defined as FI. Students whose scores are between FI and FD are defined as FINT. In this study, the mean score and the standard deviation were found as 9.61 and 3.88 respectively. Based on Bahar’s formulation, while students whose scores were below 9 were categorized as FD (f=113, 38.3%), students whose scores were above 10 were categorized as FI (f=115, 39%). Students whose scores were 9 and 10 were categorized as FINT (f=67, 22.7%).  The mean scores and the standard deviations of FI, FINT and FD students are presented in Table 2.

 Table 2. The Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of FI, FINT and FD Students’ Conceptual Understandings Measured by DIRECT

Cognitive Style	N		St.Dev
FD	113	10.3	3.56
FINT	67	12.95	4.64
FI	115	13.83	4.05

As can be seen at Table 2, FD, FINT and FI students’ mean scores were determined 10.3±3.56, 12.95±4.64 and 13.83±4.05 respectively. One way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Tukey test were used to compare the mean scores of the groups statistically. The results of the one way ANOVA and Post Hoc-Tukey test were provided in Table 3.

Table 3. The Mean Differences among FD, FINT and FI Students’ Conceptual Understandings Measured by DIRECT

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	Results of Tukey Test
						Cognitive Styles	Mean Deferences (P Values)
Between Groups	747.19	2	373.59	23.1	0.00*	FD-FINT	-2.64 (0.00*)
Within Groups	4720.88	292	16.16			FD-FI	-3.52 (0.00*)
Total	5468.08	294				FINT-FI	0.87 (0.33)

       *p<0.05

As seen in Table 3, there are statistically significant differences among FI, FINT and FD students with respect to their conceptual understandings measured by DIRECT (F_{(2, 294)}=23.1, p<0.05). This result indicates that some of these groups are more successful than their counterparts in DIRECT. Post-Hoc Test was used to determine group or groups which outperformed. According to Post-Hoc Test results, it is seen that there are statistically significant differences between mean scores of FD and FINT students and FD and FI students. On the other hand, there is no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of FINT and FI students. Therefore, it might be asserted that FINT and FI students are more successful than FD students in DIRECT.

Table 4 lists the mean scores and the standard deviations of students having different motivational styles with respect to their conceptual understandings measured by DIRECT.

Table 4. The Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Students with Different Motivational Styles with respect to their Conceptual Understandings Measured by DIRECT

Motivational Style	N		St.Dev
Curious (Cur)	102	13.11	4.10
Conscientious (Cons)	83	12.34	4.80
Achiever (Ach)	43	13.18	4.39
Social  (Soc)	67	10.35	3.25

According to Table 4, it is seen that curious, conscientious, achiever and social motivated students’ mean scores were determined 13.11±4.1, 12.34±4.8, 13.18±4.39 and 10.35±3.25 respectively. One way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Tukey test were used to compare the mean scores of the groups statistically. The results of the one way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Tukey test were provided in Table 5.

Table 5. The Mean Differences among Students with Different Motivational Styles with Respect to Their Conceptual Understandings Measured by DIRECT

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	p	Results of Tukey Test
						Motivational Style	Mean Deferences (P Values)
Between Groups	354.71	3	118.23	6.729	0.00*	Soc-Cur	-2.75 (0.00*)
						Soc-Cons	-1.99 (0.02*)
Within Groups	5113.37	291	17.57			Soc-Ach	-2.82 (0.00*)
						Ach-Cur	0.06 (1.00)
Total	5468.08	294				Ach- Cons	0.83 (0.71)
						Cur- Con	0.76 (0.60)

         *p<0.05

As seen in Table 5, there are statistically significant differences among mean scores of students with different motivational styles (F_{(3, 294)}= 6.729, p<0.05). Results of a post-hoc tukey test shows that social motivated students’ mean scores are significantly lower than those of the other three groups. In addition, there are no statistically significant differences among mean scores of achiever, curious and conscientious students. This result implies that, in enhancing comprehension and achieving better performance, learning environments and assessment approaches support students whose motivational styles are achiever, curious and conscientious compared to students who are sociallly motivated.