Procedia
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Social and
Behavioral
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2011) 000–000
Sciences
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 267 – 271
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
WCPCG-2011
Assessing learning styles of student teachers at federal college of
education
Aijaz Ahmed Gujjara * Rabia Tabassumb
a
Lecturer, Federal College of Education, islamabad, Pakistan, 00923335177748
b
Associate 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 Education 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 & Babadoğan, 2005; Cengizhan, 2007; Liegle & Janicki, 2006; Yazıcı, 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
1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. 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
268 Aijaz Ahmed GujjarGujjar
Aijaz Ahmed and Rabia Tabassum
/ Procedia / Procedia
– Social - Social and
and Behavioral Behavioral
Sciences Sciences
00 (2011) 30 (2011) 267 – 271
000–000
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.
2
Aijaz AhmedAijaz
Gujjar and Rabia
Ahmed GujjarTabassum
/ Procedia/ Procedia - Social
– Social and and Behavioral
Behavioral Sciences Sciences
00 (2011)30000–000
(2011) 267 – 271 269
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
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 28 12.2
Female 202 87.8
Total 230 100
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 gender-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
3
270 Aijaz Ahmed GujjarGujjar
Aijaz Ahmed and Rabia Tabassum
/ Procedia / Procedia
– Social - Social and
and Behavioral Behavioral
Sciences Sciences
00 (2011) 30 (2011) 267 – 271
000–000
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
Dimensions Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value Significance
Independent Between
195.548 4 48.887 2.591 0.038
Groups
Within
4244.734 225 18.865
Groups
Total 4440.283 229
Avoidant Between
498.158 4 124.540 7.716 0.001
Groups
Within
3631.429 225 16.140
Groups
Total 4129.587 229
Collaborative Between
238.826 4 59.706 3.222 0.013
Groups
Within
4169.522 225 18.531
Groups
Total 4408.348 229
Dependent Between
390.491 4 97.623 5.398 0.001
Groups
Within
4069.439 225 18.086
Groups
Total 4459.930 229
Competitive Between
241.118 4 60.279 3.661 0.007
Groups
Within
3704.865 225 16.466
Groups
Total 3945.983 229
Participant Between
338.837 4 84.709 6.037 0.001
Groups
Within
3156.907 225 14.031
Groups
Total 3495.743 229
Over All Between
9765.419 4 2441.355 8.899 0.001
Groups
Within
61728.255 225 274.348
Groups
Total 71493.674 229
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
4
Aijaz AhmedAijaz
Gujjar and Rabia
Ahmed GujjarTabassum
/ Procedia/ Procedia - Social
– Social and and Behavioral
Behavioral Sciences Sciences
00 (2011)30000–000
(2011) 267 – 271 271
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., & Babadoğan, C. (2005). İlkögretim 7. ve 8. Sınıf Ögrencilerinin Ögrenme Stillerinin Akademik
Başarı Düzeyi, Cinsiyet ve Yas ile İlişkisi. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research , 35-48.
Bose, K. (2003). An e-Learning Experience-A Written Analysis Based on My Experience in an e-Learning
Pilot Project. Campus-Wide Information Systems , 20 (5), 193-199.
Burd, B. A., & Buchanan, L. E. (2004). Teaching the Teachers: Teaching and Learning Online. Reference
Services Review , 404-412.
Cengizhan, S. (2007). Proje Temelli ve Bilgisayar Destekli Öğretim Tasarımlarının; Bağımlı, Bağımsız ve
İşbirlikli Öğrenim Stillerine Sahip Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarılarına ve Öğrenme Kalıcılığına Etkisi.
Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi , 5 (3), 377-401.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding
Teaching and Learning 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. The Journal of Psychology , 87, 213-
223.
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning Styles: Implications for Distance Learning. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (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. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 16-27.
Liegle, J. O., & Janicki, T. N. (2006). The Effect of Learning Styles on The Navigation Needs of Web-
based Learners. Computers in Human Behavior , 885-898.
Mumford, A. (1995). Putting Learning Styles to Work: An Integrated Approach. Industrial and Commercial
Training , 28-35.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Learning Styles: a Holistic Approach. Journal of European Industrial Training ,
29-36.
Yazıcı, H. J. (2005). A Study of Collaborative Learning Style and Team Learning Performance. Education
+ Training , 47 (3), 216-229.
