A Comparison of Learning Styles among Successful & Unsuccessful

Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014:528-533
www.amiemt-journal.com
A Comparison of Learning Styles among Successful & Unsuccessful
Students of Mazandaran University of Payame Noor (A Northern
Province of Iran)*
Masoomeh HezarJaribi1, Akbar Naghipour2
1
Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University, p.o.box.19395-3697, Tehran, Iran
E-mail address: masoomeh.hezarjaribi@pnu.ac.ir
2
M.S. In clinical psychology, Counselor at Education Organization, Tonekabon, Iran
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the learning styles of students based on some of
academic and demographic variables of them. Population consisted of all students
studying mathematics in Payame Noor Univesrsity (PNU) of Mazandaran province
in 2013. Using stratified random sampling according to Morgan table, 120 students
were selected as sample. Kolb's Learning Style Inventory was used to measure. To
analyze the data, chi-square test was used. Descriptive analysis of the data suggests
that successful and unsuccessful students, respectively, have Assimilating and
divergent learning style. Also, The first and second year students have a
Convergent style and Third and fourth year students had Assimilator style. But
overall, regardless of academic performance, a balanced distribution between the
four learning styles has been observed. The analytical results showed that the
students' learning style according to academic performance and gender is different,
but these differences were not significant according to the grades of students
Keywords: learning styles, academic performance, students of mathematics, Payame Noor University
1.Introduction
Impact of personal differences in learning has come into the focus of scholars and theorists in education-based
areas of study. The beginning attempts for understanding human's learning process have been made in 427 BC
when Socrates and Plato investigated the origin of knowledge. But, formal hypotheses about differences in
learning owe its origin to Herbert Thelen who introduced the term "learning style" in 1954. This assumption
that differences in learning arises from differences in mental ability had long been accepted in education-based
areas of study, but then a number of scholars challenged it. Indeed, scholars found that people had different
learning styles i.e. they organize and manipulate information in their own ways. (Emamipour and Shams
Esfandabad, 2007)
We think of learning style as the way of learning which the learner prefers over other ways. Some educational
psychologists call learning style as "learning preference" and some others define them as "learning strategy"
and "cognitive style"(Karimi, 2012). In one classification, learning styles are divided into three categories
including cognitive style, emotional style, and physiological style (Hosseini Largani and Seif, 2001). Learning
styles are defined as the ways on the basis of which persons gain understanding of matters, retain information,
give them careful thought, and resolve the problems. Emotional styles of learning involve learner's personality
and his emotional reactions such as perseverance, working alone or with others, and acceptance or refusal of
external reinforced factors. Physiological styles of learning are biological-based and are caused by reactions to
physical environment features which have influence in learning such as time of study (i.e. night or day), and
study in cool or warm places. Among these three learning styles, scholars have often carried out studies on
cognitive learning style and they have attached the greatest significance to them (Ahmadi, 2011). Cognitive
learning style comprises different categories such as field-dependence (holistic) style, field-independence style,
reflective and impulsive style, and learning style based on Kolb's experimental learning model (Kalbasi et al,
2007). The most common category of learning styles is Kolb's model-based one. Kolb divides learning process
into 4 steps:
1.1.Concrete Experimentation:
528
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014
M. HezarJaribi and A. Naghipour
It relates to learning through particular sensations and experiences. In this step, learner relies more on his
personal sensation, and abilities than on structured approaches to problems and situations.
1.2.Reflective observation:
This step relies on close observation and consideration from different perspectives. Here, the learner gains
understanding of situations from different perspectives and observes them carefully. This step is based on
hearing and seeing.
1.3.Abstract conceptualization:
Here, the learning often results from thinking. In other words, the learner relies more on his thought and
reasoning than his sensation.
1.4.Active experimentation:
learner makes this learning step due to performance and experience of changes in situations. (Hosseini Largani
and Seif, 2001)
Combining the above four steps, Kolb determines four learning styles ( figure 1) which are as follows:
Convergent style, divergent style, assimilation style, and accommodation style. (Meyari et al, 2009)
Figure 1: Kolb Learning Styles
Persons with divergent learning (A combination of concrete experimentation and reflective observation)
demonstrate the most ability in observing concrete situations from different perspectives and their approaches
rely more on observation rather than on action. As regards convergent learning, there is a combination of
abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Persons with this learning style are highly capable of
thought provoking and working on theories. They prefer to deal with technical issues rather than with social and
interpersonal issues. Assimilation style is a combination of abstract conceptualization and reflective
observation, on the basis of which we gain rational and adequate understanding about large pieces of
information. Persons with accommodation style adopt combined style of concrete experimentation and active
experimentation. They are highly capable of learning due to first-hand experiences. In addition, for capturing
information regarding problem-solving, they rely more on others than on their own analysis and reasoning
(Emamipour and Shams Esfandabad, 2007). Many scholars have conducted their studies on learning styles, in
accordance with Kolb's model. We present a review for them in this section.
Kalbasi et al (2007) examines the dominant learning styles among students of Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Tehran University of Human Sciences, and Tehran University of Engineering and Technology
529
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014
M. HezarJaribi and A. Naghipour
respectively as follows: divergent learning, accommodation style, and divergent learning. Hosseini Largani and
Seif (2001), similarly, study of predominant learning styles among students in other branches of the abovementioned universities. His findings reveal that students in University of Human Sciences are often
accommodation-style-based, students in University of Medical Sciences are assimilation-style-based, and
students in University of Engineering and Technology are divergent-style-based. Also, there is no significant
relationship between age, gender, and learning style. Rahmani (2000) points out students in University of
Human Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, University of Engineering and Technology, and University of
Art often adopt accommodation style, assimilation style, divergent learning, and convergent learning
respectively. Also, in his study on other branches of these universities, Yar Mohammadi Vasel (2000) found
that accommodation style, convergent learning, assimilation style, and divergent learning are predominant
respectively in them.
Findings of Heffler (2001) indicated that males and females are different in abstract conceptualization and
concrete experimentation. Females gain higher scores in concrete experimentation while males gain higher
scores in abstract conceptualization. Deciantis and Kirton (1996)emphasized that female students rely more on
sensation than thinking. In other words, they gain higher scores in concrete experimentation in Kolb's Learning
Style Inventory while male students have higher scores in abstract conceptualization (Ahmadi, 2011). Severiens
and Ten Dam (1994)perform a meta-analysis on 19 studies and find that males gain higher scores in abstract
conceptualization as compared with females (ibid.)
Findings of Homayoni et al. (2006) show students with cognitive and field-independence learning style often
choose to receive education in mathematics and experimental studies while students with cognitive and fielddependence learning style often prefer to receive education in human sciences. Furthermore, students with
convergent and assimilation learning often choose to receive education in mathematics and experimental studies
as compared with students with divergent and accommodation learning. But, students with divergent learning
are more oriented towards human sciences, unlike students with convergent and assimilation learning style.
Further studies on learning styles especially in students can enrich understanding for educational authorities and
educators. As the result, the present study attempts to examine students' learning styles in terms of gender
(males and females), educational achievement (successful and unsuccessful outcomes), and year of university
(first, second, third and fourth years of university).
2.Methodology
The present study was a causal-comparative descriptive research. The population consisted of all mathematics
students (250 students) of Mazandaran University of Payame Noor (a northern province of Iran). Among this
population, we selected 120 students by using Morgan and Kerjesi Table and random sampling. We collected
our data by using Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. This inventory has been designed to develop an
understanding of learner's learning process rather than to evaluate his ability, in which there is no true and false
response and all response options are equally acceptable. It contains 12 question items, being distributed in 4
sections including concrete experimentation, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation. Each sentence of this inventory has 4 response options and the learner sorts them from score 1
to score 4 on the basis of his learning style. This research confirmed its validity by using factor analysis
(Emamipour and Shams Esfandabad, 2007). As far as learning styles of Iranian students were concerned,
Hosseini Largani and Seif (2001) measured its reliability as shown in Table 1.
Learning styles
Cronbach's alpha
Table 1: reliability of Kolb questionnaire based on Cronbach's alpha
Abstract
Concrete
Active
conceptualization
experimentation
experimentation
0.77
0.70
0.76
Reflective
observation
0.70
In addition, we used frequency index Chi-square respectively for descriptive analysis of data and for analytical
evaluation.
3.Results and Discussion
530
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014
M. HezarJaribi and A. Naghipour
After collecting questionnaires, we performed descriptive analysis on data. We calculated the frequency of
learning styles among students in terms of their educational achievement. Table 2 shows the results.
Table 2: Frequency of learning styles according to gender and academic performance of students
Students
Divergent
Convergent
Assimilation
Accommodation
Male
8
21
19
8
Successful
Female
6
5
10
3
Male
14
2
4
8
Unsuccessful
Female
5
3
3
1
Total
33
31
36
20
As Table 2 shows, about 36% of successful students adopted assimilation learning and about 47% of
unsuccessful students adopted divergent learning. However, in general, all four learning styles showed equal
distribution, regardless of educational achievement. Then, we calculated the frequency of learning styles in
terms of both educational achievement and gender. The results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: frequency of students' learning style according to performance and academic year
Students
Divergent Convergent
Assimilation
Accommodation
Successful
4
10
10
4
first and second year
Unsuccessful
7
4
1
3
Successful
10
12
19
7
Third and fourth year
Unsuccessful
12
3
6
6
Total
33
31
36
20
As seen in Table 3, about %33 of first year and second year students often adopted convergent learning.
Similarly, about 33 percent of Third and fourth year students preferred assimilation learning style.
Due to great frequency of the above-mentioned data, we followed non-parametric Chi-square in order to
determine any significant difference and to examine our hypotheses. Table 4 shows a summary of this method
process.
Table 4: Inferential analysis results of the research hypotheses
Observed chiChi-square
hypotheses
square
values in Table
Comparison of student learning styles based on their
17/46
7/8
academic performance
Comparison of student learning styles based on their
19/24
7/8
academic performance and gender
Comparison of student learning styles based on their
10/05
16/91
academic performance and year
Significance
Significant
Significant
Not
significant
Chi-square results demonstrated significant difference in predominant learning styles among successful students
and unsuccessful students. Considering gender variable along with educational achievement variable, we again
observed significant difference. Conversely, there was no significant difference in learning styles, as regards
years of university and educational achievement.
4.Conclusion
This study focused on analysis of the status of learning styles of students of PNU of Mazandran studying in
mathematics Based on demographic and academic variables. Some parts of results showed that although there is
deference between students' learning styles based on their academic performance and gender and Assimilator
learning style, But with the added variable of academic performance, students who have failed, are more
oriented towards the divergent learning. These findings are consistent with the findings of Demirbas and
531
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014
M. HezarJaribi and A. Naghipour
Demirkan (2003), Hosseini Largani and Seif (2001), Rahmani (2000), Yar Mohammadi Vasel (2000), and
Homayoni et al (2006), but not with the findings of Karimi (2012).
Also, in this study we concluded that academic year will not cause significant difference in students' learning
styles. This finding is not consistent with the findings of Karimi (2012) and Meyari et al (2009) . They tried to
explain students' learning style based on academic year variable, but basically, learning style is a trait that from
the beginning of learning, develop in person and it does not seem that increasement of the grades within a short
period can create major changes In individual learning styles.in this regard, Karimi (2012) quoted from
Demirbas and Demirkan (2003) that the greatest progress was related to in assimilating learners and
accommodating learners had less progress in a semester. He in his study showed that Students with divergent
learning styles had the best performance and convergent students had the weakest performance in architectural
design studio.
Meyari et al (2009) in a study showed that learning style of students in the first year was convergent and
assimilation and for fifth-year students were convergent and accommodation. Emamipour and Shams
Esfandabad (2007) Quoted from philbin, that almost half of men were assimiliator while only 20 percent of
women were of this style but Hosseini Largani and Seif (2001) reported that there is no difference between
men's and women's learning style.
Overall, the findings of this study with other research findings, suggesting different results , so it seems to still
need more research to be done in this regard, Especially considering the fact that an important part of academic
performance depends on learning style and different learning styles make different educational outcomes, So
both learners and education system brokers, especially teachers and professors Should be more sensitive to this
To enable us to identify and provide the necessary revisions.
5.Acknowledgment
This study is an extraction from a research project titled "A Comparison of Learning Styles among Successful
& Unsuccessful Students in Mazandaran University of Payame Noor" which was supported by Mazandaran
University of Payame Noor.
References
Ahmadi, S. and Ahmadi, M. (2011). The relationship between math anxiety and learning styles of students. Research on
Curriculum, 8(102): 31-89.
Deciantis,M.S,Kirton,M.J. (1996)psychometric Reexamination of Kolb’s Experiential learning Cycle construct: A
separation of Level , style and review Process,educational and psycholodical Measurment,56(5),809-820.
Demirbas, D.D. & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies
Journal, (24): 437- 456.
Emamipour, S and Shams Esfandabad, H. (2007). Learning styles and cognitions. first edition, Tehran: Samt.
Heffler,B.(2001)Indidvidual learning style and learning style inventory , educational studies,27(3),307-316.
Homayoni, A et al (2006). The relationship between learning and cognitive styles and academic course selection in high
school male students. Iranian Journal of Psychology, 3(10):137-144.
Hosseini Largani, M. and Seif, AA. (2001). Comparison of students' learning styles according to gender and levels and
field of study. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 19:93-114.
Kalbasi, S et al (2008). Birjand University of Medical Sciences students’ learning styles. Journal of Medical Education and
Development Center, 5(1) :10-16.
Karimi, M. (2012). The relationship between learning styles and students performance in architecture workshop. Bagh-e
Nazar Quarterly, 9(20):3-12.
Meyari, A et al (2009). Comparing the first and fifth year students' learning styles and its relationship with academic
achievement. Journal of Strides in Development of Medical Education, 6(2):110-118.
Rahmani, Sh. (2000). The relationship between cognitive styles in four different fields of humanities, medicine,
engineering and art based on Aizeng personality traits. M.S. thesis, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,
Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran,Iran
Severiens, S.E., and Ten Dam, G. T. M.(1994).Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative
meta-analysis, Higher Education,27,487-510.
532
Applied mathematics in Engineering, Management and Technology 2 (3) 2014
M. HezarJaribi and A. Naghipour
Yar Mohammadi Vasel, M. (2000). Comparison of cognitive styles (converging, diverging, assimilating and
accommodating) of male and female students and professors in human sciences, medicine, engineering and art. M.S. thesis.
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran,Iran.
533