Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 1450 – 1454

WCES 2012

The effect of learning styles of preservice chemistry teachers on

their perceptions of problem solving skills and problem solving
achievements
Sinem Dincol Ozgur a *, Senar Temel b, Ayhan Yilmaz c
a, b, c
Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to determine learning styles of preservice chemistry teachers and to examine the effect of different learning
styles on their perceptions of problem solving skills and problem solving achievements. The preservice chemistry teachers of
Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, Department of Chemistry Education participated in the study. The preservice
chemistry teachers were applied The Kolb Learning Style Inventory which was developed by Kolb (1985) to determine their
learning styles. The Problem Solving Inventory which was developed by Heppner and Petersen (1982) was applied to determine
s of problem solving skills and The Chemical Calculations Achievement Test was
applied to determine their problem solving achievements. Obtained data analyzed by using SPSS and obtained results were
discussed.

2012Published
© 2012 PublishedbybyElsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: learning styles, problem solving skill, problem solving achievement, preservice chemistry teachers

1. Introduction

There are various ways that students prefer for receiving and processing information. Some students focus on data
and operations while others are better at theories and mathematical models. While written and verbal explanations
are effective for some students, visual elements such as drawings, figures and graphics are more effective for others.
Some students prefer interactive environments while others prefer to study individually. These differences in
ndicate that they have different learning styles (Felder, 1996). The concept of learning style
was first propounded by Rita Dunn in 1960. Cano and Garton (1994) stated that learning styles were among the
achievement. There are different definitions regarding learning
styles in the literature. According to Kolb (1984) learning style is the ways that the individual prefers during
receiving and processing information. According to Dunn and Dunn (1993) it is the use of different and unique ways
while preparing to learn new and difficult information, while learning and while remembering the learned

stimuli in learning environments. In this context, these differences among students also affect their problem solving

* Tel.: +0312-297 67 87
E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.319
 Sinem Dincol Ozgur et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 1450 – 1454 1451

information ( , 2011). There are different problem solving definitions in the literature. According to Wheatley
(1984) problem solving is what you do when you do not know what to do. Gagne (1970) stated that problem solving
was the highest level of learning and problem solving skill was an inevitable life skill, and defined problem solving
as a thinking process in which the student explored the composition of the learned rules in order to solve a new
problem (Gagne, 1977). According to Cardellini (2006), on the other hand, problem solving is something more than
placing the numbers into well-learned formulas and it is directly related to creativity, deliberation and formal
information. Achievement in problem solving process depends on defining the problem correctly (Kuzgun, 1995),
indiv
problem and the way in which the individual evaluates oneself in dealing with his/her real personal problems
(Hepner and Peterson, 1982; as cited in Ferah, 2000). The reason is that people who have positive senses of self in
terms of problem solving tend to be more successful in real problem solving. The people who approach their

ing knowledge while

solving a problem is related to learning styles. In this context, this research aimed to find out whether there is a
perceptions of problem solving skills and problem solving achievements
depending on their learning styles or not.

1.1 Aim of the study

This study aims to determine the learning styles of preservice chemistry teachers and to examine the effect of
different learning styles on their perceptions of problem solving skills and problem solving achievements. In this
aspect, we are guided by the following subproblems: 1. What are the learning styles of the preservice chemistry
teachers? 2. Is there a significant difference between perceptions of problem solving skills of preservice chemistry
teachers according to their learning styles? 3. Is there a significant difference between problem solving
achievements of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles?

1.1. Study Group

46 preservice chemistry teachers from Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, Department of Chemistry
Education in the spring term of the 2011-2012 academic years participated in the study.

2.Method

2.1. Data Collection Tool

Inventory: This Inventory was originally developed by Kolb (1985) and adapted into
Turki . This Inventory is consisted of 12 questions about the ways in which one
learns best. Each question has four answers, which are ranked by an individual in terms of best fit on a scale of 1 4
(being best). Each answer represents four learning style. The Inventory includes four learning modes. These are:
concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC) and active experimentation
(AE). The combination of two learning modes which are dominants is
of AE
CE and RO Converger AE and AC,
and AC. The Cronbach alpha coefficients are calculated as .82 for CE, .73 for RO, .83 for AC, .72 for AE, .78 for
AC-CE, .81 for AE-RO by ( and Akkoyunlu, 1993).
Problem Solving Inventory: This Inventor was originally developed by Heppner and Petersen (1982) and adapted
into Turkish by and . The inventory is composed of 35 items with 6 point Likert scale.
(1997) determined that this inventory is consisted of three subfactors; problem solving confidence,
approach-avoidance and personal control. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .90. The
1452 Sinem Dincol Ozgur et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 1450 – 1454

obtained high scores from the inventory show that perception of problem solving skills is low while obtained low
scores show that that perception of problem solving skills is high.
Chemical Calculations Achievement Test: This test which is consisted of 15 multiple choice questions related to
study. It is examined by three experts in
the field of chemistry education for content validity. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as
.70.

3. Findings

Firstly, the data obtained from were analyzed to determine learning styles of
preservice chemistry teachers. Their learning styles are given in Table 1.

Accommodator Diverger Assimilator Converger Total

N 4 8 16 18 46
% 8,70 17,39 34,78 39,13 100

When Table 1 was examined, it was determined that of the preservice chemistry teachers 8.7 % have
17, iverger 34, Assimilator 39,13 Converger learning
styles. 12 preservice chemistry teachers were left out of analysis to prevent the negative effect of the number of

significance. Analyses were conducted for 34

Secondly, independent samples t-test was conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference
between perceptions of problem solving skills of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles.
The t-test result is given in Table 2.

Table2. t-test result related to perceptions of problem solving skills of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles

Learning Styles N X S sd t p
Converger 18 82,55 16,57 32 -1,41 0,168
Assimilator 16 90,06 14,14

When Table 2 was examined, any significant difference was not found between perceptions of problem solving
skills of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles (t(32)= - 1,41, p >0.05).
Thirdly, independent samples t-test was conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between
problem solving achievements of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles. The t-test result is
given in Table 3.

Table 3. t-test result related to problem solving achievements of preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles

Learning Styles N X S sd t p
Converger 18 9,55 2,33 32 2,51 0,017
Assimilator 16 7,81 1,68

When Table 3 was examined, a significant difference was found between problem solving achievements of
preservice chemistry teachers according to their learning styles (t(32)=2,51, p < 0.05). Problem solving
achievements of preservice che X = 9,55) are higher than
Assimilator ( X = 7,81). This finding could be interpreted
 Sinem Dincol Ozgur et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 1450 – 1454 1453

that there is a significant relationship between problem solving achievements and learning styles of preservice
chemistry teachers.

4. Discussion

Regarding the first subproblem, the dominant learning styles of the preservice teachers were found to be
Converger (39,13%) and Assimilator (34,78%). In the literature, it was determined that individuals in teaching
profession mostly had Assimilator learning style while individuals interested in sciences mostly had Converger
learning style and Akkoyunlu,1993). The fact that the study group comprises of preservice
chemistry teachers indicates that we obtained a result supported by the literature. The recent studies conducted in
study (Baykara
Pehlivan, 2010; Demir, 2008; ).
Regarding the second subproblem of the study, when the average grades that the preservice chemistry teachers
got from problem solving inventory were examined, it was found that the preservice chemistry teachers having the
Converger learning style had an average of X =82,55; while the preservice chemistry teachers having the
Assimilator learning style had an average of X =90,06 (Table 2). This result indicates that the preservice
chemistry perceptions of their problem solving skills are at a medium level. It was found out that the
preservice chemistry s of their problem solving skills do not show a significant difference
depending on learning styles (t(32)= - 1,41, p >0.05). In the literature, there are not many researches conducted in this
area however, stated in their research that the problem solving
skills of elementary science, mathematics and Turkish preservice teachers did not show significant differences

that there is not a significant relationship between learning styles and problem solving skills in their research
conducted with the students of faculty of education.
Regarding the third subproblem of the study, when the Table 3 was examined, it was found that the problem
solving achievements of the preservice teachers showed a significant difference depending on their learning styles
(t(32)=2,51, p < 0.05).
achievements indicate the presence of the relationship between learning style and achievement (Boatman, Courtney
ve Lee, 2008; Collison, 2000; Lang, Stinson, Kavanagh, Liu ve Basile, 1999; Matthews, 1996; Synder, 2000;
Woolhouse ve Blaire, 2003;). Chiou (2008) suggested that the learning style preferences of the students affected
their performances depending on the type of the course. and ) found out that there was a

learning styles.
When the Table 3 was examined, it was found that the achievements of the preservice chemistry teachers having
the Converger learning style were significantly higher than the achievements of the preservice chemistry teachers
having the Assimilator learning style. It is seen that this result is supported by the literature. Kolb (1993) stated
that the individuals having the Converger learning style were more successful in making decisions and solving
problems and that these features were the strong aspects of these individuals. Smith and Kolb (1996) suggested that
the students having the Converger style were better at deciding the problem solving way and at problem solving
activities. Demirbas and Demirkan (2007) reached the conclusion that the students having the Converger learning
style was more successful in problem solving activities.
The fact that the preservice chemistry
learning styles might be interpreted as that the achievements they will get from different types of measuring tools

achievement points they get from different types of measuring tools indicate a significant difference depending on
their learning styles or not. Besides, it might also be examined whether there are differences in the preservice
environments depending on their learning styles.
1454 Sinem Dincol Ozgur et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 1450 – 1454

References

, 87(17), 37-47
attitudes toward teaching profession. Elementary
Education Online, 9(2), 749- 763.
how they l
introductiory economics. The American Economist, 52( 1), 39 48.
Cano, J.,& Garton, B. L., (1994). The
teaching agriculture course, Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(2), 6 10.
Cardellini, L. (2006). Fostering creative problem solving in chemistry through group work. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7 (2),
131-
Chiou, W. (2008). ment in collaborative teaching: Absolure versus
relativistic thinking. Adolescence, 43 (169), 129- 142.
Clark, D., (1999). Learning styles or, how we go from the unknown to the known, http://sdfsc-enews.org/LearningUnknown-Known.pdf saved:
10.12.2011.
Co Contemporary Education, 71 (4), 42-49.
, A. (2011). Probleme d (479- 506). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design
education. Learning and Instruction, 17, 345- 359.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K., 1993, -12,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Felder,R. M. (1996). Matters of style.ASEE American Society of Engineering Education ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.
Ferah, D. (2000).Kara harp okulu problem becerileri a problem nsiyet,

Gagne, R.M., 1970, The conditions of learning, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagne, R.M., 1977, The conditions of learning, (3rd.ed.), New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. , 160.
Fizik stanbul: Marmara

Heppner. P.P. & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem solving inventory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 29(1), 66-75.
Kolb, D. A. (1993). lsi-iia: self scoring inventory and interpretation booklet. Boston:McBer & Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. (1985). Leaming style inventory: Self scoring inventory and interphetation booklet. Boston. Mcber And Company.
May, 2009).
incelenmesi.
http://www.eab.org.tr/eab/oc/egtconf/pdfkitap/pdf/200.pdf accessed in 15 November 2011.
Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Kavanagh, F., Liu, Y., & Basile, M. L., 1999, Learning styles of deaf college students and instruct
emphases. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4 (1), 16 27.
Matthews, D. B., 1996, An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students. The Clearing House,
69(4), 249- 254.
- .

Smith, D. M., & Kolb, D.A. (1996). guide for the learning- style. Boston: McBer and Company.
Synder, R. F., 2000, The relationship between learning styles / multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. High
School Journal, 83 (2), 11- 21.
incelenmesi. Kuram ve
6 (1), 231- 264.
Tatar,E:; C., , N. (2008). ar lar yla ili kisi. Mustafa Kemal
, 5 (10). 185- 192.
Woolhouse, M., & Blaire, T., 2003, Learning styles and retention and achievement on a two-year a-level programme in a further education
college. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3) , 257 269.
Wheatley, G.H., 1984, MEPS Technical Report, Mathematics and Science Centre, Purdue University.