1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.565

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

WCES-2010

Learning styles of primary education prospective mathematics teachers; states of trait-anxiety and academic success

Muzaffer Okura *, Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahara aErzincan Education Faculty, Erzincan University, Erzincan, 24030, Turkey

Received October 29, 2009; revised December 7, 2009; accepted January 15, 2010

Abstract

The purpose of present research is to analyze academic success and dominant learning styles and trait anxiety states of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers. The data have been collected from 168 students enrolled in Erzincan University, Faculty of Education, Primary Education Mathematics Teaching Department. Kolb Learning Style Inventory and Trait Anxiety Inventory have been employed as measurement tools. To answer research questions, besides descriptive statistics, Kruskal Wallis Test, Mann Whitney U Test and simple linear regression analysis techniques have also been employed. Obtained results have proved that dominant learning styles of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers are mostly converger and assimilator learning styles; states of their academic success vary with respect to their learning styles; trait anxiety levels are not meaningful predictors of their academic success and the level of trait anxiety state does not change with respect to their learning style. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning Style; trait anxiety; academic success; mathematics; prospective teachers.

1. Introduction

As an outcome of the rooting and practicing of constructivist approach in education throughout years, it has been understood that learning is an individual activity and throughout this process certain individual differences do exist in all the steps starting from information receiving, organizing to interpreting (Veznedaro lu & Özgür, 2005). Accordingly, the studies which emphasize the necessity to follow training and education activities that stress “Training and Education Based on Learning Styles” where individual differences are greatly foregrounded and strong features of individuals are given more attention have become prevalent (Ekici, 2003). Learning style that has been densely worked on for the last 30 years is one of the most effective variables influencing learning- teaching process (Kaf Hasarc , 2006).

Learning style is described as individualistic differences in approach within the process of information receiving and processing (Kolb, 1984; McCarthy, 1987; Felder, 1996). In more general terms, it can be defined as the preferences of individuals in the methods of information gathering, organization, thinking and interpreting (Davis, 1993). Learning style, by putting learning theories to its base, contains in itself three different dimensions mainly

* Muzaffer Okur. Tel.: +90 446 2240089; fax: +90 446 2231901 E-mail address: mokur@erzincan.edu.tr

Muzaffer Okur and Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahar / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637 3633

cognitive (information receiving, processing, storing, coding and decoding style), affective (motivation, attention, supervision focus, interests, willingness to take risks, determination, responsibility and keenness on social life etc.) and physiological (sensorial perception /visual, audio, kinesthetic, environmental features/level of noise, light, heat, room order etc.) (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993; Boydak, 2001; Ekici, 2001). Since learning style has three diversified dimensions and theorists focus on one of them, it introduced with itself rather distinct approaches regarding the nature of learning style and identification methods.

Since the 1940s, a great number of researches have been conducted on learning styles and many learning style models have been developed. There are three different learning style approaches commonly used by educators. The first one is personal awareness view. Actually this is the view of all learning style theories yet some educators, e.g. Gregorc, emphasize it more than the others. The second view is curriculum design and application of it on education process. Once the fact that individuals learn in different ways is known then multi-dimensional education models can be employed. The researchers advocating this approach are Kolb, McCarthy, Butler and some other researchers. Third approach is recognitory perspective. The key learning style elements of individuals are diagnosed and as much as possible; these elements are matched with the training and materials that will be prepared for individual differences. Rita Dunn, Kenneth Dunn, Marie Carbo can be identified as the researchers adopting this approach (Brandt, 1990; Mutlu, 2005).

Kolb Learning Style model that is based on Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984; A kar & Akkoyunlu, 1993) is one of the models applied commonly. Differing from other cognitive learning theories, Kolb learning style model lays stress upon experiential learning and role of experiences in learning process (Kaf Has rc , 2006).

Kolb learning style consists of two dimensions; information receiving and information processing. The first dimension explains concrete experimentation and abstract conceptualization; second dimension defines active experimentation and reflective observation (Rayner & Riding, 1997). Learning methods representing learning styles are different from one another. For Concrete Experimentation, learning takes place through “Feeling”; for Reflective Observation by “Observing”, for Abstract Conceptualization through “Thinking”, for Active Experimentation by “Doing”. Still there is not single form determining the learning style of an individual (A kar & Akkoyunlu, 1993).

The learning style of an individual is explained by the interaction of four basic learning styles in different forms. These learning styles are “Diverger”, “Assimilator”, “Converger” and “Accommodator”. These four different learning styles surface both dominant learning style and learning preference of the individual.

Dominant learning skills of individuals with diverger learning style are concrete experimentation and reflectory observation. They learn through feeling and observing. While shaping thoughts, they take their own feelings and thoughts into consideration. Individuals with assimilator learning style use their reflective observation and abstract conceptualization skills. They learn through observations and concepts. While learning, they focus on abstract concepts and ideas. Individuals with converger learning style benefit from abstract conceptualization and active experimentation learning skills. They learn through thinking via concepts and doing. Their main characteristics are problem-solving, decision taking, logical analysis of ideas and systematic planning. Individuals with accommodator learning style make use of their active experimentation and concrete experimentation learning skills. They learn through doing and feeling. Their main characteristics are planning, applying decisions and participating in new experiences. (Kolb, 1984; A kar & Akkoyunlu, 1993; Romero-Simpson, 1995; Rayner & Riding, 1997; Peker, 2003).

Dwyer (1996) emphasizes that regardless of any learning environment, the procedure should be designed by carefully considering the learning styles of students. Detection of students’ learning styles aids in creating environments that are favored by students and facilitate the structuring of information for them (Güven, 2008). Researches (Griggs & Dunn, 1996; Felder & Dietz, 2002) put forth that once learning environments are designed in line with learning styles of students, their academic success will be elevated.

The variables affecting academic success of students can generally be grouped as psychological, physical and social factors. Some of these variables are related to individual differences (Long, 2000). One of the factors creating these differences is anxiety level of individuals. Not only the source of anxiety is ambiguous; its level also varies from one person to another. Although it is a topic that is widely discussed (Zeidner, 1998) anxiety state may include one or more of excitement states such as distress, worry, fear, feeling of failure, helplessness, ambiguity of the outcome and being judged (Cücelo lu, 1996).

3634 Muzaffer Okur and Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahar / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637

Anxiety state is viewed as a variable having an influence over the performance of individual (Siber, O’Neil, & Tobias, 1977). A certain amount of anxiety is considered to be assistive in learning. However excessive anxiety state is not favorable for learning; thus it is suggested that this is a hindrance before learning. In states of excessive anxiety, the person loses his/her abstract thinking ability, mental flexibility and fluency. Absence of anxiety too can affect learning adversely (Baymur, 1994). Hence not only absence of anxiety and but excessive anxiety state as well should be regarded as a factor affecting a person’s academic performance adversely.

According to Spielberger, anxiety can be divided into two groups; state and trait anxiety. State anxiety is an emotional state indicated with instantaneous fear, distress and tension. Trait anxiety is described as the constant inclination of an individual towards anxiety experimentation. This can also be explained as the tendency of an individual to perceive the situations as stressful at all times or to interpret the events as stressful. Trait anxiety state is a differentiation factor among individuals (Öner & Le Compte, 1985). In literature it is possible to come across studies referring to anxiety state specific to a subject. Mathematics anxiety (Zaslavsky, 1994; Ashcraft, 1995), test anxiety (Zeidner, 1998), computer anxiety (Beckers, 2003) can be lined as examples. As studies in Turkey concerning anxiety are examined, it surfaces that, specific subject-directed anxiety of students have been discussed to a large extend. On the other hand, not may studies have been detected concerning the anxiety states of university students (Akgün, Gönen, & Ayd n, 2007).

Theoretical framework given above puts forth that learning styles of individuals and states of trait anxiety can be variables affecting learning process. Therefore it is essential that effects of learning style and trait anxiety states on learning and whether trait anxiety state is a predictor of academic success be analyzed.

1.1. Objective

The objective of this research is to analyze Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers’ academic success and dominant learning styles and states of trait anxiety. With this objective, below stated questions have been attempted to answer:

1. What kind of a distribution is there between Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers’ dominant learning styles, their trait anxiety and academic success?

2. Does academic success state of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers vary with respect to their dominant learning styles?

3. Is trait anxiety state of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers a meaningful predictor of their academic success?

4. Does Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers’ trait anxiety state vary with respect to their learning styles?

2. Method

Data have been collected from 168 students enrolled in Erzincan University, Faculty of Education, Primary Education Mathematics Teaching Department in spring term of year 2008-2009. To detect academic success level of students, faculty records have been used. To detect their learning styles, Kolb Learning Style Inventory developed by Kolb (1985) and adapted to Turkish by A kar and Akkoyunlu (1993); to detect their trait anxiety state Trait Anxiety Inventory developed by Spilberger and adapted to Turkish by Öner and Le Compte (1985) have been employed. To answer research questions, in addition to descriptive statistics, Kruskal Wallis Test, Mann Whitney U test and simple linear regression analysis techniques have also been used.

3. Findings

Distribution of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers with respect to their dominant learning styles is given in Table 1. It has been found out that of all prospective teachers 11,3% has accommodator, 7,1% has diverger, 42,9% has converger and 38,7 % has assimilator learning style.

Muzaffer Okur and Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahar / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637 3635

Table 1. Distribution of Students with respect to their Dominant Learning Style

Learning Style Frequency Percentage Accommodator 19 11,3

Diverger 12 7,1 Converger 72 42,9 Assimilator 65 38,7

Total 168 100,0 According to 4-grading system, grade point average of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers is

2.72, trait anxiety score average is 43.74. The results of Kruskal-Wallis test related to the academic success states of Primary Education prospective

mathematics teachers with respect to their learning styles are indicated in Table 2. According to the results given in Table 2, academic success states of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers varied with respect to their learning styles (X2: 18,715, p < .001). As shown by Mann Whitney U test results, there is a meaningful difference between students with converger learning style and students with accommodator, diverger and assimilator learning styles.

Table 2.Results of Kruskal-Wallis test related to the academic success states of students with respect to their learning style

Learning Style N Mean Rank Df X2 p Meaningful Difference

Accommodator (AC) 19 60,47 3 18,715 ,000* AC-C, D-C Diverger (D) 12 52,75 C-AS

Converger (C) 72 100,91 Assimilator (AS) 65 79,21

Total 168 *p < .001

The results of simple linear regression analysis related to predicting academic success scores of Primary

Education prospective mathematics teachers according to their trait anxiety levels are given in Table 3. It has been detected that trait anxiety level of prospective teachers is not a meaningful predictor of their academic success (R: ,104; R2: ,011; F: ,178; p > .05). Trait anxiety level has no positive or negative effect over academic success score.

Table 3. Results of regression analysis related to predicting academic success scores of students according to their trait anxiety levels

Variable B Standard ErrorB t p

(Trait) 2,997 ,212 14,166 ,000 Trait Anxiety -,006 ,005 -,104 -1,353 ,178 DW: 1,719 R: ,104 R2: ,011 F: ,178 p > .05

The results of Kruskal-Wallis test concerning trait anxiety levels of Primary Education prospective mathematics

teachers with respect to their dominant learning style are shown in Table 4. According to test results, trait anxiety states of prospective teachers do not vary with respect to their learning styles (X2: 3,918, p > .05).

Table 4. Results of Kruskal-Wallis test concerning trait anxiety levels of students with respect to their learning style

Learning Style N Mean Rank Df X2 p Accommodator 19 86,58 3 3,918 ,270*

Diverger 12 100,63 Converger 72 76,71 Assimilator 65 89,55

Total 168 *p > .05

3636 Muzaffer Okur and Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahar / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637

4. Conclusion and Discussion

Dominant learning styles of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers are mostly converger and assimilator learning styles. This finding is partially parallel to Kolb Learning Style’ foresight suggesting that assimilator learning style is compatible with mathematics field. In Kolb learning style it is stated that both mathematics field and teaching profession match with assimilator learning style (A kar & Akkoyunlu, 1993). This finding obtained from present research shows similarity with Peker et al. (2004) in terms of the deduction that dominant learning styles of prospective mathematics teachers are mostly converger and assimilator learning styles; however this finding differs from other findings in terms of the deduction that prospective teachers mostly have converger learning style. It differs from Bahar, Özen & Gülaçt , (2009)’s findings on learning styles of prospective mathematics teachers in a different dimension from converger.

Research findings indicate that 38.7% of students have assimilator learning style. The fact that a great majority of students (42,9%) has converger learning style may stem from the reality that students who are talented in fields such as medical and engineering, which are supposed to be compatible with this learning style, have selected mathematics teaching program due to several reasons.

The findings are consistent with the ones received from a research where learning styles of secondary education students have been analyzed (Oral, 2003). However these findings are different from some other research results (Kaf Has rc , 2006; K l ç, 2002; A kar & Akkoyunlu, 1993) claiming that prospective teachers mostly prefer assimilator learning style.

According to Four-grading system, it has been found out that grade point average of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers is 2.72, trait anxiety score average is 43.74. It is possible to state that success score average is in medium level. However trait anxiety scores obtained from some researches on university students are higher than anxiety score averages (Öner & Le Compte, 1985), and in some studies it is lower than obtained score averages (Akgün et al., 2007). The fact that anxiety score average is different from the ones obtained in other studies may be associated with conducting the research within a different city and social environment.

Academic success states of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers vary with respect to their learning styles. In K l ç and Karadeniz’s (2004) research it has been found out that learning style has no meaningful effect on academic success. On the other hand Has rc (2005) detected that education that is arranged according to visual learning styles is effective on the academic success of students having visual learning style. In another study (Bahar et al., 2009) no meaningful difference has been detected in academic success states of university students with respect to their learning styles.

Academic success level of students with converger learning style is higher than academic success of students with other learning styles. This shows that created learning environments support students with converger learning style more. In a research that analyzed favored learning styles of high school students on their biology lesson success (Özkan, Sungur & Tekkaya, 2004), a meaningful difference has been identified between the learning style students favored and their biology lesson success. It has been detected that students with assimilator learning style are more successful in biology lesson compared to students with converger, diverger and accommodator learning styles.

Trait anxiety level of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers is not a meaningful predictor of their academic success. Although it has been put forward that one of the factors affecting learning is anxiety state (Siber et al., 1977; Baymur, 1994; Bacanl , 1999), in present study it has been detected that anxiety state does not affect the academic success negatively or positively. In another study that examined effect of university students’ state anxiety on academic success (Silah, 2003), it has been seen that anxiety level created a positive and negative effect on academic success and at times it had no effect at all. In the same research it has been underlined that the level of state anxiety which was generally low had no motivating effect on academic success which was also little. In Akgün, Gönen and Ayd n’s (2007) research it has been found out that students with high levels of trait anxiety had higher academic success averages.

Trait anxiety states of Primary Education prospective mathematics teachers do not vary with respect to their learning styles. This may be bound to the differences in factors that compose learning style and trait anxiety.

In creating learning environments, in addition to students with converger learning style, considering students with other learning styles as well may elevate the level of academic success that is acknowledged to be an indicator of learning.

Muzaffer Okur and Hüseyin Hüsnü Bahar / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 3632–3637 3637

References

Akgün, A., Gönen, S., & Ayd n, M. (2007). lkö retim fen ve matematik ö retmenli i ö rencilerinin kayg düzeylerinin baz de i kenlere göre incelenmesi, Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (20), 283-299.

Ashcraft, M. H. (1995). Cognitive psychology and simple aritmetic: a review and summary of new directions, Mathematical Cognition, 1 (1), 3-34.

A kar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb Ö renme Stili Envanteri, E itim ve Bilim, 87, 37-47. Bacanl , H. (1999). Geli im ve Ö renme (p. 107). Ankara: Nobel Yay nevi. Baymur, F. (1994). Genel Psikoloji (p. 189). stanbul: nk lap Kitabevi. Beckers, J. J. (2003). Computer Anxiety: Determinants and Consequences, Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit. Bahar, H. H., Özen, Y., & Gülaçt , F. (2009). E itim fakültesi ö rencilerinin cinsiyet ve bran a göre akademik ba ar durumlar ile ö renme

stillerinin incelenmesi, Ankara Üniversitesi E itim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42 (1), 69-86. Boydak, A. (2001). Ö renme Stilleri, stanbul: Beyaz Yay nlar . Brandt, R. (1990). On learning styles: A conversation with pat guild, Educational Leadership, 48(2), 10. Cücelo lu, D. (1996). nsan ve Davran (p. 277). stanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Griggs, S., & Dunn., R. (1996). Hispanic-American students and learning style. EastLansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher

Learning.ERIC. Document Reproduction Service no. ED 393607. Davis, B. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco. CA, Jossey-Bass. Dwyer, J. (1996). Learning Differences and Teaching Styles. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.yorku.ca/admin/cst/learndifs.html . Ekici G. (2001). Ö renme Stiline Dayal Biyoloji Ö retiminin Analizi. Yay nlanmam Doktora Tezi, Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi. Ekici, G. (2003). Uzaktan e itim ortamlar n n seçiminde ö rencilerin ö renme stillerinin önemi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi E itim Fakültesi Dergisi,

24, 48-55. Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-Prism.htm

(20.10.2009) Felder, Richard M., & Dietz, E. J. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes, Journal of

Engineering Education, 91(1), 3-17. Güven, B. (2008). lkö retim ö rencilerinin ö renme stilleri, tutumlar ve akademik ba ar lar ars ndaki ili kinin incelenmesi, Türkiye Sosyal

Ara t rmalar Dergisi, 12(1), 35-54. Jonassen, D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences Learning and Instruction, New Jersey, Lawrance Erlbaum

Associates. Kaf Has rc , Ö .(2005). Görsel ö renme stillerine göre düzenlenen ö retimin akademik ba ar ve kal c l a etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal

Bilimler Dergisi , 14 (2), 299-314. Kaf Has rc , Ö. (2006). S n f ö retmenli i ö rencilerinin ö renme stilleri: Çukurova Üniversitesi örne i, E itimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 2 (1),

15-25. K l ç, E. (2002). Bask n Ö renme Stilinin Ö renme Etkinlikleri Tercihi ve Akademik Ba ar ya Etkisi, E itim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 1(1), 1-15. K l ç E., & Karadeniz, . (2004). Cinsiyet ve ö renme stilinin gezinme stratejisi ve ba ar ya etkisi, Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi E itim Fakültesi

Dergisi, 24 (3), 129-146. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Long, M. (2000). Psychology of Education (pp. 76-100). London: Routledge Falmer. McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques. Barrington: Excel, Inc. Mutlu, M. (2005). Ö renme sitillerine dayal fen bilgisi ö retimi, Yüzüncü Y l Üniversitesi E itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 1-24. Oral, B. (2003). Ortaö retim ö rencilerinin ö renme stillerinin incelenmesi, Kuram ve Uygulamada E itim Yönetimi, 35, 418-435. Öner, N., & Le Compte, A. (1985). Durumluluk Sürekli Kayg Envanteri El Kitab (p. 5). stanbul: Bo aziçi Üniversitesi Yay nlar . Özkan, ., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2004). Onuncu s n f ö rencilerinin tercih ettikleri 8. ö renme stillerinin biyoloji ba ar lar na etkisi, E itim

ve Bilim, 29(134), 75-79. Peker, M. (2003). Kolb Ö renme Stili Modeli, Milli E itim Dergisi, 157, 185-192. Peker, M., Mirasyedio lu, ., & Ayd n, B. (2004). Matematik ö retmenlerinin dikkate alabilecekleri ö renme stilleri: Mc Carthy Modeli, Milli

E itim Dergisi, 163, 72-81. Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and learning styles, Educational Psychology, 17 (1-2), 5-27. Romero-Simpson, J. E. (1995). The importance of learning styles in total quality management-oriented college and university courses, Ed. (Sims,

R. R. And Sims, S. J.), The Importance of Learning Styles, London: Greenwood Press, 99-128. Siber, J.E., O’Neil, H.F., & Tobias, S. (1977). Anxiety, Learning and Instruction (pp. 145-203). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Silah, M. (2003). Üniversite ö rencilerinin akademik ba ar lar n etkileyen çe itli nedenler aras nda süreksiz durumluluk kayg n n yeri ve önemi,

E itim Ara t rmalar Dergisi, 10, 102-115. Veznedaro lu, L., & Özgür, O. (2005). Ö renme stilleri: tan mlamalar, modeller ve i levleri, lkö retim-Online, 4(2), 1-16, [Online]:

http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol4say2/v04s02m1.pdf Zeidner, M. (1998). Test Anxiety (p. 13). New York: Plenum Press. Zaslavsky, C. (1994). Fear of Math How to Get Over It and Get On with Your Life, USA: Rutgers University Press.