@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2013;6(2):83-88
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2013;6(2):83-88
Relationship between Learning Styles and Academic Achievement of University Students
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Farajollahi M. (1)Najafi H. (*)
Nosrati Hashi K. (2)
Najafiyan S. (3)
(*) Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Tehran Branch, Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran
(1) Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educa, Tehran Branch, Payam-e-Noor University, Tehran, Iran
(2) Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences & Psychology, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
(3) Department of Training, Khalkhal Branch, Payam-e-Noor University, Khalkhal, Iran
Correspondence
Address: Payam-e-Noor University, Up the Jahangardi deer, Khalkhal, Iran. Postal Code: 56817-33653Phone: +985116653955
Fax: +985118683001
hossien_najafi@pnu.ac.ir
Article History
Received: February 19, 2013Accepted: May 11, 2013
ePublished: June 7, 2013
ABSTRACT
Aims
Inquiry about learning styles and their relationship with academic improvement cause movement toward desired learning. The purpose of the present research was to examine the relationship between learning styles and age, gender, and academic status of the students.
Materials & Methods This descriptive-correlation research was conducted in Khalkhaal Branch of PNU on all boys and girls university students studying in educational semester of 2011-12. One hundred and fifty subjects were chosen using stratified sampling. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) of Witkin was used as data collection tool. The mean of the first semester scores of students was considered as academic status index. Pierson correlation coefficient and stepwise regression analysis were used in order to evaluate the relationship between learning styles and their components with age, gender, and academic achievement.
Findings The mean group of 16.00-16.99 had the highest learning style numerical value(17.2±1.62) and the mean group of 14.00-14.99 had the lowest learning style numerical value (11.6±1.54). Furthermore, the effect of age on the FI learning style was significant and on the FD learning style was not significant. The correlation between FI learning style, FD learning style and the learning style as a whole with academic status was significant, all predicting the academic status.
Conclusion Age and gender affect the learning style. Younger students and girls have more tendencies toward learning style which is dependent to the educational environment.
Materials & Methods This descriptive-correlation research was conducted in Khalkhaal Branch of PNU on all boys and girls university students studying in educational semester of 2011-12. One hundred and fifty subjects were chosen using stratified sampling. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) of Witkin was used as data collection tool. The mean of the first semester scores of students was considered as academic status index. Pierson correlation coefficient and stepwise regression analysis were used in order to evaluate the relationship between learning styles and their components with age, gender, and academic achievement.
Findings The mean group of 16.00-16.99 had the highest learning style numerical value(17.2±1.62) and the mean group of 14.00-14.99 had the lowest learning style numerical value (11.6±1.54). Furthermore, the effect of age on the FI learning style was significant and on the FD learning style was not significant. The correlation between FI learning style, FD learning style and the learning style as a whole with academic status was significant, all predicting the academic status.
Conclusion Age and gender affect the learning style. Younger students and girls have more tendencies toward learning style which is dependent to the educational environment.
CITATION LINKS
[1] Seef A. Educational psychology. Tehran: Payam-e-Noor Publication; 2008. [Persian]
[2] Sternberg R. Cognitive psychology. Kamala K, Hejaz E, translators. Tehran: Samt Publication; 2008. [Persian]
[3] Atkeen M. Memory psychology. Zare H, translator. Tehran: Ayiizh Publication; 2009. [Persian]
[4] Emami Poor S, Shams H. Cogitative and learning styles: Theories and tests. Tehran: Aizh Publication; 2007. [Persian]
[5] Goldman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books Publisher; 1998.
[6] Sternberg R, Grigarenko EL. Are cognitive still in styles. Indiana: American Psychology Publisher; 1997.
[7] Riding R, Chemo L. Cognitive styles: An overview and integration: Educational psychology. Int J Exp Educ Psychol. 1991;9:132-42.
[8] Bull K. A putative treatment interaction and cognitive styles. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University; 2009.
[9] Cofield FD, Moseley E, Celestine K. Styles and pedagogy in post-learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre; 2006.
[10] Sarmadi M, Zare H. Field independent and field dependent impact of learning styles on students' achievement Payam-e-Noor university. Peyk-e-Noor J. 2006;4:23-9. [Persian]
[11] Witkins HA, Moore C, Goodenough R, Cox W. Fileddependent and filed-independent cognitive styles and their educational implication. Rev Educ Res. 1977;47(1):1-64.
[12] BrennerJ. An analysis of student's. New York: Cognitive Styles in Asynchronous Distance Education Publisher; 1997.
[13] Bar-on R, Parker A. The hand book of emotional intelligence: Theory development, assessment and application at home, school and workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher; 2003.
[14] Rezai A. A study of the relationship between learning styles of field independence-dependence in student’s humanities and mathematical sciences. Tehran: Tarbiyat Moallem University Publication; 1998. [Persian]
[15] Bosak S, Towson S. Field independence-dependence and self steam in preadolescents: Dose gender makes a difference. J Adolesc Young. 1997;26(6):213-31.
[2] Sternberg R. Cognitive psychology. Kamala K, Hejaz E, translators. Tehran: Samt Publication; 2008. [Persian]
[3] Atkeen M. Memory psychology. Zare H, translator. Tehran: Ayiizh Publication; 2009. [Persian]
[4] Emami Poor S, Shams H. Cogitative and learning styles: Theories and tests. Tehran: Aizh Publication; 2007. [Persian]
[5] Goldman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books Publisher; 1998.
[6] Sternberg R, Grigarenko EL. Are cognitive still in styles. Indiana: American Psychology Publisher; 1997.
[7] Riding R, Chemo L. Cognitive styles: An overview and integration: Educational psychology. Int J Exp Educ Psychol. 1991;9:132-42.
[8] Bull K. A putative treatment interaction and cognitive styles. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University; 2009.
[9] Cofield FD, Moseley E, Celestine K. Styles and pedagogy in post-learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre; 2006.
[10] Sarmadi M, Zare H. Field independent and field dependent impact of learning styles on students' achievement Payam-e-Noor university. Peyk-e-Noor J. 2006;4:23-9. [Persian]
[11] Witkins HA, Moore C, Goodenough R, Cox W. Fileddependent and filed-independent cognitive styles and their educational implication. Rev Educ Res. 1977;47(1):1-64.
[12] BrennerJ. An analysis of student's. New York: Cognitive Styles in Asynchronous Distance Education Publisher; 1997.
[13] Bar-on R, Parker A. The hand book of emotional intelligence: Theory development, assessment and application at home, school and workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher; 2003.
[14] Rezai A. A study of the relationship between learning styles of field independence-dependence in student’s humanities and mathematical sciences. Tehran: Tarbiyat Moallem University Publication; 1998. [Persian]
[15] Bosak S, Towson S. Field independence-dependence and self steam in preadolescents: Dose gender makes a difference. J Adolesc Young. 1997;26(6):213-31.