Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers: A mixed study

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this research is to reveal relations between Kolb’s learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers in depth in regard to different variables and identify their mobile learning perspectives. The study group consisted of 352 students enrolled in undergraduate programs in education faculties of different universities in Turkey. The convergent parallel design was used as a mixed method strategy. The survey model, as a quantitative component, was used to describe the present situation and embedded interviews, as a qualitative component, were carried out to deeply reveal pre-service teachers’ perspectives on mobile learning depending on their learning styles. The “Learning Styles Inventory - Version III” as well as the “Mobile Learning Readiness Scale” were administered to participants. ANOVA, Tukey-HSD test and Structural Equation Modelling were used to analyze the quantitative data. The qualitative data were analyzed by the content analysis method. Results suggest that 126 (36%) of the pre-service participating in the study were with the assimilating learning style, 92 (26.29%) participants were with the diverging learning style, 73 (20.85%) were with the converging learning style and 59 (16.85%) were with the accommodating learning style. Furthermore, it was observed that there is a statistically significant relationship between the learning styles of the pre-service teachers and their m-learning readiness. In addition, it was observed that while optimism, self-directed learning and self-efficacy have a strong effect on m-learning; mother education, monthly income, gender, internet use frequency have a moderate effect on m-learning within different learning styles. Qualitative data were also in line with the results of quantitative data. Findings were discussed in light of relevant literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdullah, M., Daffa, W. H., Bashmail, R. M., Alzahrani, M., & Sadik, M. (2015). The impact of learning styles on Learner's performance in E-learning environment. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 6(9), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2015.060903.

  • Açışlı, S. (2016). Investigation of class teacher candidates' learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Elementary Education Online, 15(1), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.78596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ağca, R. K., & Bağcı, H. (2013). Eğitimde Mobil Araçların Kullanımına İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri (Students views of mobile tools usage in education). Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 2(4), 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Adwan, A. S., Al-Madadha, A., & Zvirzdinaite, Z. (2018). Modeling students’ readiness to adopt mobile learning in higher education: An empirical study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3256.

  • Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb öğrenme stili envanteri (Kolb’s learning inventory). Eğitim ve Bilim, 87, 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, Y., Zhang, H., & Yun, S. (2017). Teachers’ attitudes toward Mobile learning in Korea. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 154–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayrak, M., Aydemir, M., & Karaman, S. (2017). An investigation of the learning styles and the satisfaction levels of the distance education students. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(1), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.310022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktar, O. (2014). Factors affecting E-learning instruction design and relation with design perception. Balikesir University The Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17(31), 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Data analysis handbook for Social studies). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.

  • Çakıroğlu, Ü., Gökoğlu, S., & Öztürk, M. (2017). Pre-service computer teachers’ tendencies towards the use of mobile technologies: A technology acceptance model perspective. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çalışkan, E. (2017). Fatih Projesi Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğretim Ortam ve Yöntemlerine İlişkin Görüşlerini Nasıl Etkilemektedir? (How does the FATIH project affect pre-service teachers’ views on teaching environment and methods?). Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 6(1), 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Can, Ş. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğrenme stilleri ile bazı değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılması (Investigation of the relation between learning styles and some variables of classroom teacher candidates). Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 70–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik (Statistics with multi variable for social studies). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çubukçu, Z., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Kırcaburun, K. (2017). Investigation of pre-service teachers' opinions toward mobile technologies within the frame of technology acceptance model. Asian Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, Co. EDUCAUSE Center for applied research.

  • Dikmen, M., & Tuncer, M. (2017). Investigation of pedagogical formation program students' learning styles and attitudes towards mobile learning According to Various Variables. International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium. 24–26 May 2017, Malatya/Turkey.

  • Elcicek, M., & Bahceci, F. (2015). The Research of the Vocational School Student’s Attitudes towards Mobile Learning. The Journal of Education Faculty Sakarya University, 30, 17–33.

  • Elçiçek, M., & Bahçeci, M. (2017). The investigation of the effects of Mobile learning management system on academic success and attitudes of learners. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 25(5), 1695–1714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergüney, M. (2017). The role of Mobile learning technologies in distance education. Ulakbilge, 5(13), 1009–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evin-Gencel, İ. (2007). Kolb'un deneyimsel öğrenme kuramına dayalı öğrenme stilleri envanteri-III'ü Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması (Turkish adaptation study of learning styles inventory-III based on the Kolb’s experimental learning theory). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 120–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78, 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, L., Kong, X., Zhu, S., & Yang, H. H. (2015, July). An investigation of factors influencing college students’ mobile learning behavior. In International Conference on Hybrid Learning and Continuing Education (pp. 323–333). Cham: Springer.

  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gökçearslan, Ş., Solmaz, E., & Kukul, V. (2017). Mobil Öğrenmeye Yönelik Hazirbulunuşluk Ölçeği: Bir Uyarlama Çalişmasi (Mobile Learning Readiness Scale: An Adaptation Study). Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gökdaş, İ., Torun, F., & Bağrıaçık, A. (2014). Teacher Candidates' Mobile phones educational use situations and opinions on Mobile learning. Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(2), 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gülbahar, Y. (2017) e-Öğrenme (e-Learning). Ankara: Pegem.

  • Gündüz, Ş., Aydemir, O., & Işıklar, Ş. (2011). 3Gteknolojisi ile geliştirilmiş möğrenme ortamları hakkında öğretim elemanlarının görüşleri (Views of the instructors about the learning environments developed with 3G technology). Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürsoy-Dikmen, T., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2011). (2011). Analysis of learning styles of preservice teachers in terms of various variables. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. Haziran, 2(1), 52–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güven, M., & Kürüm, D. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stilleri ile eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri arasındaki ilişki (The Relationship between teacher candidates’ learning styles and critical thinking dispositions). İlköğretim Online E-Dergi, 7(1), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasırcı, Ö. (2006). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme stilleri: Çukurova Üniversitesi örneği (learning styles of prospective primary school teachers: Çukurova University case). Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama Dergisi, 2(1), 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, T. L., & Bundy, D. D. (2000). Teaching to students’ learning styles: Approaches that work. Frontiers in education conference. In San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, M., Tin, T., & Cao, Y. (2008). "in-your-pocket" and" on-the-fly:" meeting the needs of today's new generation of online learners with mobile learning technology. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (second ed.). Canada: AU Press.

  • Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, S. (2016). Do learners’ characteristics matter? An exploration of mobile-learning adoption in self-directed learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 769–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, R., Khan, S. U., Zaheer, R., & Khan, S. (2012). Future internet: the internet of things architecture, possible applications and key challenges. In Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT), 2012 10th International Conference on (pp. 257–260). IEEE.

  • Kim, H. J., Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2017). Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students. Computers & Education, 113, 108–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (second edition). New York.

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D.A. (1999). The kolb learning style inventory. Hay Resources Direct.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D.A. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Hay Resources Direct.

  • Korucu, A. T., & Bicer, H. (2018). Investigation of post-graduate Students' attitudes towards Mobile learning and opinions on mobile learning. International Technology and Education Journal, 2(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. H., Lin, S., Yeh, C. H., & Wang, Y. S. (2016). Measuring mobile learning readiness: Scale development and validation. Internet Research, 26(1), 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E1–E9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loo, R. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of Kolb’s learning style preferences among business major. Journal of Education for Business May/Jun; 77, 5, 252–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, T., & Yang, X. (2018). Effects of visual/ verbal learning style on concentration and achievement in Mobile learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(5), 1719–1729. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/85110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolis, C., Burns, D. J., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb learning style inventory. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1988). A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod analyses: Application of second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 107–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, H., & Wang, T. (2012). Acceptance of IWBs instruction and contamitant behavior through self-regulation learning. GSTF Journal on Computing, 1(4).

  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative Research. In Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, A. (2014). On better understanding the usage of mobile phones for learning purposes. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology, 16(2–3), 18.

  • Saban, A., & Çelik, İ. (2018). Preservice ICT teachers’ perceptions about educational mobile apps. Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research., 4(1), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sağır, A. G. F., & Göksu, A. G. H. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının mobil eğitim uygulamalarına yönelik tutumları (Teacher candidates' attitudes towards mobile education applications). IV. Eğitim Yönetimi Forumu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Şenyuva, E. (2017). Farklı Öğrenme Stillerine Sahip Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin e-Ders Tasarımına İlişkin Görüşleri: Web Tabanlı Hasta Eğitimi Dersi Örneği (views of nursing students with different learning styles about the e-course design: Sample of web-based patient education course). GEFAD/GUJGEF, 37(1), 289–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: Research practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistica https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/ (retrieved, 10 June 2018).

  • Sülün, A., & Bahar, H.H. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği programına kayıtlı öğrencilerin öğrenme stillerinin bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi (Examination of learning styles of students enrolled in science teacher education program according to some variables). 18. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı Bildiri Özetleri (s.129), Ege Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, 1–3 Ekim 2009, İzmir.

  • Sun, Z., Yao, X., You, J., Du, W., & Luo, L. (2018). Detecting the correlation between mobile learning behavior and personal characteristics among elementary school students. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–16.

  • Teo, T., & Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2012). Technology acceptance of pre-service teacher in Turkey: A cross-cultural model validation study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(3), 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortorella, R. A. W., & Graf, S. (2017). Considering learning styles and context-awareness for mobile adaptive learning. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9445-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ.... The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2).

  • Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods Knowledge Base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tümkaya, S. (2011). Fen bilimleri öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ve öğrenme stillerinin incelenmesi (comparison of college science major students’ learning styles and critical thinking disposition). Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 12, Sayı 3, 215–234.

  • Tuncer, M., Dikmen, M., & Akmençe, A. E. (2018). Investigation of higher education students' learning styles and attitudes towards mobile learning according to various variables. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 4(3), 433–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 607–634). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Viberg, O., & Grönlund, A. (2017). Understanding students’ learning practices: Challenges for design and integration of mobile technology into distance education. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1088869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yağcı, M. (2017). Examining the attitudes of preservice teachers toward Mobile learning in terms of Technopedagogical content knowledge. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Educational Faculty, 44, 543–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. (2012). Exploring college students' attitudes and self-efficacy of mobile learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yavuzalp, N., & Gürol, M. (2017). E-öğrenme ortamında kullanılan öğrenme stillerinin web kullanım madenciliği ile analizi (The Analysis of Learning Style in E-learning Environemnt Via Web Usage Mining). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 987–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences [Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri]. (5 th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

  • Zamzuri, N.H., Kassim, E.S., Shahrom, M. (2010). The role of cognitive styles in investigating Elearning usability, in: International conference on e-education, e-business, e-management, and elearning, (IC4E '10) 3–6.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey

    Rıdvan Ata

  2. Karamanoglu Mehmet Bey University, Karaman, Turkey

    Mustafa Cevik

Authors
  1. Rıdvan Ata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Cevik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rıdvan Ata.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ata, R., Cevik, M. Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers: A mixed study. Educ Inf Technol 24, 1351–1377 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9835-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9835-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation