Learning Styles as the Predictor of Academic Success of the Pre-Service History Teachers

In this study, the relations between learning styles and academic success of pre-service history teachers were examined. The study group of this research was comprised of 142 pre-service history teachers, who attended Bayburt University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History in spring quarter of 2017-2018 academic year. "Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale" was used in collection of data for the research. As per the academic success of the pre -service history teachers, averages of their four major area course grades were recorded. In the analysis of the research data, descriptive statistics, t -test for the independent groups, and multiple regression analysis were used. It was understood that the dominant learning styles of pre -service history teachers were, respectively, dependent, independent, participant, collaborator, avoidant, and competitive learning st yles. Also, it was found that gender variable has not significant effect on pre-service history teachers’ learning style. In the regression analysis, it was discovered that the learning styles of pre-service history teachers are predictive for their academic success. Moreover, it was understood that only participant and competitive learning styles significantly predicted the aca demic success. In other words, learning styles of pre-service history teachers accounted for 28 % of academic success of the pre-service history teachers.


Introduction
In education and training, student-centered approaches (constructivism) emphasize the importance of the learner in learning process. That the learners have different learning types is one of the important elements of this principle.
It can be mentioned that individuals are different bas ed on their learning styles as they differ one from another concerning wei ght, height, gender, race, self-esteem, and confidence (Gozutok, 2011, p.75). Thus, learning s tyle is a different preference of each i ndividual about learning. When the definitions for learning s tyles are examined, it is observed that "preference" is in common among all of these definitions. In other words, how the individuals prefer to learn is their learning style (Arslangilay, 2015, p. 62). Indeed, each individual has strengths and weaknesses, different motivations and working methods (Gokce, 2014, p. 183).
In this res earch study, academic success of the students was analyzed by the researcher via Grasha and Reichmann learning style model. The reason why Grasha and Reichman learning styles are preferred in the research is that the validity and reliability of the scale is tes ted s everal times before. In addi tion, the scale has been examined in terms of academic achievement of chemistry, physics, and classroom education (Inal, 2013;Karakuyu & Tortop, 2010;Sidekli & Akdogdu, 2018;Topuz & Karamustafaoglu, 2013;Tuysuz & Tatar, 2008). Howev er, there are no studies investigating relation between Grasha and Reichman learning styles and history overall academic achi evement. On the other hand, Grasha (2002, p.128), stated learni ng styles and general class preferences of the students with these learning styles as follows: Competi tive: Students in this learning style want to be better than the other students. They want to draw attention and to be known in thei r class with their success. They lead the group during discussions. They are better than other students in class activities.
Cooperative: This type of students think that skills and opinions are learned as they are shared. They cooperate wi th the teacher and the s tudents like studying as well. They like small group discussions, small seminars, and group projects in the lessons.

Avoidant:
The students, who have no interest in the lesson content and learni ng environment, are in this classification. Students with this learning style attend neither the classes nor the students. Students with avoidant learning style are indifferent about what is happening in the classroom. They are closed to the activities of the classroom. Tests are not among their preferences. They dislike eager teachers and being addressed in the classroom.
Participant: They are happy to attend the class and lessons. They do whatever they can in the lessons. They prefer discussions and class readings during the lessons.
Dependent: Students displaying the least interest and only learni ng the basic things are in this group. They look for an authori tarian figure about what to do. They perceive the teacher as the source of di rective. They prefer the assignment to have a due date and to be clear. Moreover, they prefer teacher-centered approaches.
Independent: Students who learn themselves and who rely on their learning skills are in this group. Different from other students, they prefer to study alone. They prefer assignments providing free learning and free thinking, individual projects, and student-centered lesson designs.
On the other hand, some res earches show that there is a relationship between learning styles, active learning techniques and history academic achiev ement, social studies academic achiev ement (Bozkurt, 2013;McCarthy & Anderson, 2000;Seker & Yilmaz, 2011). However, no study has been conducted on the relationship between the Grasha and Reichman learning styles and the history overall academic achievement of history teacher candidates. In this context, whether the learning styles of pre-service history teachers are predictive with their general academic success levels is examined in this research study. The problems of the study are as follows: 1. What are the prominent learning styles of pre-service history teachers? 2. Is there a differentiation in the learning styles of the pre-service history teachers concerning the gender variable?
3. Do the learning styles of pre-service history teachers predict the academic success?

Research Method
In order to determine the relation between the learning styles and academic success, correl ative research design was used. Rel ational res earch studies aim to show the rel ations between the v ariables (Sonmez & Alacapinar, 2016, p.50). In other words, correlational research methods are used in determining relation levels among the variabl es (Buyukozkturk, Cakmak, Akgun, Karadeniz & Demirel, 2010, p.226).
The universe of the res earch study is comprised of pre-service history teachers, who attended Bayburt University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History in spring quarter of 2017 -2018 academic year. Without applying any sample in the study, all of the pre-service teachers within the univers e of the research were attempted to reach. Thus, 142 pre-service history teachers (83 females and 59 mal es) participated in the research study.
In order to determi ne the learning s tyles of the pre-service history teachers "Gras ha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale" was used. University course grades of the pre-service history teachers were used for academic success.

Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale
Learning Style scale was used in the s tudy. Grasha and Reichman developed it. The interpretation was carried out by Saritas and Sural (2010). The scale is comprised of 6 dimensions. These dimensions are independent, dependent, participant, avoidant, collaborative, and competent learni ng styles. There are 10 items for each dimension, in total, 60 items. Reliability co-efficient for the whole scale was .802 and language validity correl ation was .62. These results show that the scale can be used in the s ample groups in Turkey. According to the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scal e, each learning style is either in "low", "medium", or "high" level. These levels are given on Table 1: (Saritas & Sural, 2010).

Data Analysis
In order to decide the method to us e in the analysis of the data obtai ned in the study, normal distribution and v ariance homogeneity of the data was observ ed. Since the data had a normal distribution and the vari ances were homogeneous, it was found that the analyses were suitable for parametric tests. T-test was used for the relation between the gender variable and learning style and independent samples. Multiple regression analysis was conducted in order to examine whether the learning styles are predictive for the academic success of the history classes. Normal distribution of the dependent variable was checked in order for the regression analysis, and it was determined that the distribution was normal. Moreover, in this mentioned regression analysis, it was checked whether there was multiple connection among the independent variabl es. In order to examine whether there was a mul tiple linkage among the predictors, Pearson's correlation co-efficient, variance inflation factor (VIF), and tolerance values were checked. According to thes e results, the correl ation was lower than 0,7(rmax=0,46); VIF value was lower than 10 (VIFmax=1,627), and tolerance value was higher than 0,10 (tolarancemin-max=,615-867). These values proved that there was no multi ple linkage (Pallant, 2016, p.176).

Findings
The statistical results showing the learning styles and levels of the pre-service history teachers are presented on table 2. On Table 2, it was discovered that collaborative and competi tive learning styles of the pre -service history teachers were high, while their independent, avoidant, dependent, and participant learning styles were in medium level. The dominant learning styles of 142 pre-service history teachers are presented on Table 3. The analysis results whether the gender vari able created significant difference among the learning styles of the preservice history teachers are on Table 4. Findings are shown on Table 5 regarding the multiple regression analysis, which was conducted to examine the effects of the learning styles of pre-service history teachers on their academic success. When the analysis results on Table 5 are examined, it is observed that there is a significant and medium level multiple correlation (R=0,538, R2=0,289) between the six learning styles and academic success of the pre-service history teachers (F(6-135)=9,162, p<0,01). Besides, the learning styles all together, account for 28 % of the change in the academic success R 2 (0,289). Considering the significance tests of regression co-efficient, it is understood that only participant and competitive learning styles significantly predict the academic success. According to standardized regression co-efficient, relative order of importance of the le arning s tyles on academic success, can be stated as participant (β=,466) and competitive (β= -,272). Considering the coefficients of these predictors, it can be mentioned that one-unit i ncrease i n the participant learning style will cause 12,761-unit increase in the academic success; while one-unit increase in the competitive learning style will cause 6,593-unit decrease in the academic success.

Discussion and Conclusion
In the res earch study, it was understood that the collaborative and competitive learni ng styles of the pre-service history teachers were in hi gh lev els, while their independent, avoidant, dependent, and participant learning style levels were moderate. Consideri ng the dominant learning style, it was obs erved that 35,2 % of the 142 pre-service teachers had dependent, 28,9 % of them had i ndependent, 16, 9 % had participant, 15,5 % had collaborative, 2,8 % had avoidant, and 0,7 % had competent dominant learning style. In a study conducted by Aydemi r et al., similar to the fi ndings of this study, it was found that competitive learning style of the pre-service primary school teachers was in high level, and thei r independent, dependent, participant, avoidant, and cooperative learning styles were in moderate lev els (Aydemi r, Kocoglu & Karali, 2016). In another res earch study, it was discovered that participant, dependent, and independent learning styles of pre-service primary school teachers were in hi gh lev els, and their avoidant learning s tyle was low, while their competitive and cooperative learnin g styles were moderate (Sidekli & Akdogdu, 2018). In the research study of Bilgin & Bahar, the averages of cooperative/competitive sub -dimensions of pre-service primary school teachers were detected in high levels (Bilgin & Bahar, 2008). Tuysuz & Tatar found that competent and cooperative learning styles of pre-service primary school teachers were in high levels (Tuysuz & Tatar, 2008). Thes e results are similar to that of this research study. Moreover, learning styles of the pre-service history teachers did not show difference based on gender vari able. The results concerning gender v ariable are different from the findings of Sidekli & Akdogdu (Sidekli and Akdogdu, 2018). This result can be explained by the fact that the effect of gender difference on learning styles is not a strong factor in the current research.
In this research study, it was discovered that the learning styles of pre-service history teachers are predictive for their academic success. In other words, the learni ng styles of the pre -service history teachers accounted for 28 % of the academic success of the pre-service history teachers. For the most part of the previous studies, it is observed that learning style is effective on academic success (Bozkurt, 2013;Sidekli & Akdogdu, 2018 ;Karakuy u &Tortop, 2010;Inal, 2013;Tuysuz & Tatar, 2008). The res ults in Bozkurt's research indicated that there was a significant positive correlation between teachers' achievement and participant learning styles, but a negative relationship between achievement and passive learning style (Bozkurt, 2013). Sidekli & Akdogdu found out that there are significant and moderate multiple correlations between the six learni ng styles and the academic achievement of the primary school pre-service teachers in thei r research (Sidekli & Akdogdu, 2018). Karakuyu & Tortop found out that learning style has an effect of pre-service teachers' Physics success and attitudes toward Physics (Karakuyu & Tortop, 2010). Inal's research showed that "course taught wi th materi als intended for learning styles in experiment group increased chemistry academic success when compared to course taught with traditional teaching in control group" (Inal, 2013).
Tuysuz & Tatar found out that learning style has an effect of pre-service teachers' chemistry success and attitudes toward chemistry (Tuysuz & Tatar, 2008). In a few researches, it is asserted that this effect cannot be detected (Bayir, 2007;Topuz & Karamus tafaoglu, 2014). According to Bayir's research, "there was no significant difference between success and permanency points of both groups in favour of the experimental group which was used the learner control was cons tructed with the learning style in web bas ed education" (Bayir, 2007). Topuz & Karamustafaoglu found out there was no significant relationship between the learning styles of the prospective science teachers and their academic achievement (Topuz & Karamustafaoglu, 2014). In the current research, only participant and competi tive learning styles significantly predict the academic success. There was no relationship between other four learning styles (Independent, avoidant, collaborative, and dependent) and academic achievement. Learning culture in Turkey (Sidekli be given. However, in this case, the history teacher will not pl ay the good directive-giving role but will play a role, which sets the student free and alone. When the history teacher assigns a project to t he students with collaborative learning style, he/she should play neither the directive-giving role nor the setting-free role. In project assignments, the history teacher should encourage the students with collaborative learning style to teamwork. On the o ther hand, in history lessons, drama method can be an effective way for the students with competitive learning style. On the other hand, activities such as history projects based on collaboration, and classroom discussions of modern -day historians' interpretations can be conducted for the students with collaborative learning style (Dilek, 2007, p. 76).
Another important issue is that in collaborative approaches, it is desired to bring together the team members wisely (Kottler and Gallavan, 2013, p. 126). Question and answer teaching method mi ght not be a sui tabl e technique for the students with avoidant l earning style (particularly for the avoidant students, who do not like to s peak and who have lack of confidence). "For the ones with independent learni ng style, resource-based teaching activities can be used." (Turan, 2009, p.34-46). For the s tudents with participant and collaborative styles, mus eum visits might be a good approach and this approach can provide an active learning setting for the s tudents, who will have the chance to learn by experience (Ata, 2009, p. 125 -126). Similarly, verbal history activities can be applied for the students with participant and collaborative learni ng s tyles. Because it is a method, which can be applied through all echelons of education and in which the students can use thei r skills actively (Kabapinar, 2014, p. 290;Kottler & Gallavan, 2013, p. 176). In history lessons, the learning styles and individual differences of the students should be followed while deciding the cours e materials (Ozturk, 2012, p.18-19). In bri ef, history teachers should maximize their teaching methods (Turan, 2009, p. 47). In addition, learni ng styles of students should be taken into account not only in the learning and teaching process but also in the assessment and evaluation process. In the meanwhile, for an effective teaching that will significantly contribute to both the teacher and the students.