Vol.

V (LXVII)
No. 1/2015

01 - 10

Relationship between learning styles and scientific attitude

of secondary school students and their achievement in
Science subject.
Ravi Kant*a, Murli Dhar Singhb
a

Maulana Azad National Urdu University,College of Teacher Education,Darbhanga, Bihar, India

b
Department of B.Ed. Shri Gandhi Mahavidaylaya, Sidhauli, Sitapur (UP) India

Abstract
This is science who gives more and more knowledge to human kind. Scientific innovations and
developments have change entire human life. Learning of science is an important matter for policy
makers. The study of science is of great interest to children and provides a natural opportunity for
children to grow in ability to solve problems. By taking a sample of 500 secondary school students of
science stream an attempt had to know the relationship between learning style, scientific attitude and
achievement in science. With the help of standardized instruments Ex-post facto and Survey method
were used. Results indicate that science students have different learning styles. Further, achievement in
science subject was not significant differ in some groups of learning style but it was significant in some
groups. Students having more and less scientific attitude of different categories of learning style were
not significant overall but in some cases they were significant different.
Keyword:learning style; scientific attitude; science achievement; secondary school students

1. Introduction
Science and Technological developments in the last four decades have accelerated
this process. Bruner (1960), the famous psychologist has suggested that teaching be
regarded as a temporary arrangement intended to enhance the learners capacity to
learn for himself. Traditionally, teaching has been viewed as a science i.e. as a
systematic application of rules of science of human behavior in organizing
instructions for learners. Learning style may be referred specifically to a persons
characteristic pattern of behavior in a particular learning field. The determination of
functional level and specific deficits provides the essential information for deciding
what a child should be taught and decides How to teach him effectively. Various
psychological and educationalists have defined the term Learning Style in simple
words as the way with which student learns best. Sigel (1994) viewed learning style as
an integral concept that bridges the personality cognitive dimensions of individuals.
Gibson (1974) defined learning style as The different ways in which people process
information in the course of learning. He further defined that learning styles and
cognitive styles are synonyms. Laylock (1978) described learning as, An individuals
characteristic way of responding to certain variables in the instructional environment.
The study of science is of great interest to children and provides a natural
opportunity for children to grow in ability to solve problems. This growth in ability to
solve problems then is one of the primary contributions science can make. An attitude
is the mental condition while a method is an organized series of acts. The scientific
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: edu.ravikant@gmail.com

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

attitude is indeed closely related to the scientific method. A scientific attitude is an

attitude, which will tend to foster scientific achievement. According to NSSE,
Scientific attitude can be defined as open mindedness, a desire for accurate
knowledge confidence in procedure for seeking knowledge and the expectation that
the solution of the problems will come through the use of verified knowledge.
Dani (1984) has compared the cognitive style on the basis of gender difference, arts
science and commerce students, village, middle class and big city students, early late
and middle adolescent students. He concluded that:
1. Boys and girls did not differ significantly when compared on the basis of their
cognitive styles.
2. Science students possessed significantly higher field independent ability than
the art and commerce students.
3. Big city students possessed average or above average field independent ability
than the middle class town and the village students.
4. The early adolescents were found to be significantly more field independent
than the middle and the late adolescents.
Joy (1991) investigated the impact of learning style factors on college students
retention and achievement. The purpose was to determine the effect of exposure to
different level of learning styles information on the academic achievement and
retention rte of full time college freshman students, the results of the study
establishment no significant impact of learning style factor on college students
achievement. Verma and Kumari (1992) made a study entitle An Ex-Post-Facto
Study of the relationship of family climate and learning style. The finding of the
study reveals that family climate of adolescent girl student was not significantly
related to their learning style preferences. Shrivastava (1992) conducted a study
entitled A study to determine the relationship between cognitive style, educational
interest, learning style and academic achievement. The sample of 600 students
studying in class XI in different higher secondary schools of Raipur city was selected
randomly for the study. Instrument used were Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT)
by Oltman and achievement scores obtained in the last board examination. Major
findings of the study were as follows:
1. Subjects showing high interest in science and fine arts tended to be more field
independent (FI) than those showing low interest.
2. More students achieving high in literature, mathematics, Science, Social
Studies and on overall achievement displayed FI cognitive style than those
achieving low.
Noorjahan (1993) studies the relation between cognitive style and school
achievement. The results supported the findings already discussed above that field
independent and field dependent students were significantly different in relation to
their achievement in science. The study conducted by Sheikh (1994) also provides
support to above description. He investigated personality, psychological need and
academic achievement of rural and urban female adolescent students in relation to
their cognitive style. The result indicates that field independent females adolescent
students achieve higher scores in academic than their field dependant counterparts.
Venugopal (1994) has concluded on the basis of his study that achievement was not
related to cognitive style. Field dependant and Field Independent pupils do not differ
in their achievement in biology. The same result was reported by Burkley (1993). He
studied field independent/field dependent cognitive styles of Japanese students and
correlation with their academic achievement. Analysis of the study confirmed that no
significant correlation was found between cognitive style and academic achievement.
Afif (1997) studied the effect of accommodating students learning styles on academic
achievement and attitude towards algebra. The results concluded that gender played a

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

significant role in this study. Male students who were taught by the method of
instruction corresponding to their learning style preferences had slightly higher
attitudinal gain scores and consistently higher achievement gain scores than male
students who were taught by the traditional lecture method. Marie (1996) conducted a
study on self efficiency, attribution and attitude towards science among high school
students. The study revealed that males showed more positive attitude toward careers
in science and were more open-minded than females but females had more positive
attitudes about the normality of scientists. After reviewing related literature
investigator found a gap of research about learning style and scientific attitude in
selected area. So this study has been taken.
2. Objectives of the study
1. To study the learning style of secondary school students.
2. To study the scientific attitude of secondary school students.
3. To study the relationship between learning style and achievement in science of
secondary school students.
4. To study the relationship between scientific attitude and achievement in science
of secondary school students.
3. Hypotheses of study
1.There will be no significant difference between different learning style and
achievement in science of secondary school students.
2.There will be no significant difference between scientific attitude and
achievement of science of secondary school students.
3.There will be no significant difference between different learning style and
achievement of science of secondary school students.
4. Research Method
Ex-post facto and survey method of social research were used in this study.
5. Population and Sample
All students studying in class XI were considered as population of the study. A
sample of 500 of class XI science students were selected from the selected college. 50
students had been selected from each college. In all 250 boys and 250 girls had been
selected for the purpose of the study.
6. Instruments used
The following standardized tools have been used for the purpose:
1. Learning style Inventory by D.A. Kolb (1976) for exploring learning style of
secondary school students.
2. Scientific Attitude Scale by Sood and Sandhya (1992) for measuring scientific
attitude.
3. For Achievement Scores marks obtained in High-School UP Board Examination
for measuring achievement in science.
7. Delimitations of the study
1. This study is limited to the secondary school students of Bareilly city only.
2. The study of confined to the students of class XI only.
3. Only U.P. Board schools have been selected for the study.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

8. Data analysis and interpretation

Table 1. Learning Styles of Students in total

S.No.

Learning Styles

No. of Students

Percentage

Range

1.

Convergent

150

30.00%

24.7% to 35.28%

2.

Divergent

101

20.20%

15.58% to 24.82%

3.

Assimilative

97

19.40%

14.86% to 23.94%

4.

Accommodative

152

30.40%

25.11% to 35.68%

Total

500

100.00%

The total number of students in the sample following convergent learning style is
150, which is 30.00% of the total sample. It shows that 24.72% to 35.28% of students
of the total population follow the convergent learning style. The number of students in
the sample following divergent learning style is 101, which his 20.20% of the total
sample. In total population 15.58% to 24.82% of the students follow divergent
learning style. The table shows that the total number of students in the sample
following assimilative learning style is 97, which is 19.40% of the total sample. It
shows that about 14.86% to 23.94% of the students of the total population follow the
assimilative learning style. The total number of students in the sample following
accommodative learning style is 152, which is 30.40% of the total sample. It is
evident from the table that about 25.11% to 354.68% of students of the total
population follow the accommodative learning style.
Table 2. Distribution of sample according to scientific attitude

S.No.

Scientific Attitude

No. of Students

Percentage

1.

High Scientific Attitude

274

54.80%

2.

Low Scientific Attitude

226

45.20%

3.

Total

500

100.00%

Table 2 indicates that 274 students out of 500 having high scientific attitude and
226 are having low scientific attitude. Percentage of High and Low scientific
attitudes students is 54.80% and 45.20% respectively.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Table 3. Learning Styles of Students with More Scientific Attitude

S.No.

Learning Styles

No. of Students

Percentage

Range

1.

Convergent

106

38.68%

31.12% to 46.28%

2.

Divergent

40

14.60%

9.10% to 20.10%

3.

Assimilative

40

14.60%

9.10% to 20.10%

4.

Accommodative

88

32.12%

24.84% to 39.39%

Total

274

100.00%

Table 3 reveals that out of 274 students who have more scientific attitude, 106
students follow the convergent learning style, which is 38.68% of the total sample. It
shows that 31.12% to 46.28% students of the total population falling in this category.
The number of students who follow the divergent and assimilative learning style is
same i.e. 40 which is 14.60% of the total sample. The range of the student who comes
under these categories is 9.10% to 20.10%. 88 students follow the accommodative
learning style, which is 32.12% of the sample. The range of the students of the total
population who follow the accommodative learning style is about 24.48% to 39.39%.
Table 4. Learning Styles of Students with Less Scientific Attitude

S.No.

Learning Styles

No. of Students

Percentage

Range

1.

Convergent

44

19.47%

12.67% to 26.26%

2.

Divergent

61

26.99%

19.37% to 34.61%

3.

Assimilative

57

25.22%

17.77% to 32.67%

4.

Accommodative

64

28.32%

20.59% to 36.05%

Total

226

100.00%

Table 4 represents that out of 226 students with less scientific attitude, only 44
students follow the convergent learning style, which is 19.47% of the total sample. It
shows that 12.67% to 26.26% students of the total population follow the convergent
learning style. Number of students who follow the divergent learning style is 61,
which is 26.99% of the total sample. The range of the students who come under this
category is 19.37% to 34.61%. And 57 students i.e. 25.22% of the total sample follow
the assimilative learning style. The range of the students falling in this category is
17.77% to 32.67% in the total population. 64 students with less scientific attitude
follow accommodative learning style, which is 28.32%. The range of this category is
20.59% to 36.05%in the total population.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Table 5. Difference between achievements and learning style of convergent and divergent groups

Learning
Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Convergent

150

69.00

12.08

Divergent

101

60.92

10.94

Standard
Error
1.45

t-Value
5.33*

* Significant at 0.01 level

The table 5 shows mean of achievement of convergent and divergent learning style
students which are 69.00 and 60.92 respectively. T value is 5.33 which is significant
at 0.01 level. It infers that the achievement of the students following convergent
learning style is significantly higher than those following divergent learning style.
Table 6. Difference between achievements and learning style of convergent and assimilative groups

Learning
Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Convergent

150

69.00

12.08

Assimilative

97

57.68

11.10

Standard
Error

1.49

t-Value

7.39*

* Significant at 0.01 level

The above table 6 reveals that there is significant difference in achievement of the
students following convergent and assimilative learning style. The present difference
is significant at 0.01 level in favor of convergent learning style. Thus the above
hypothesis is rejected.
Table 7. Difference between achievements and learning style of convergent and accommodative
groups

Learning Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Convergent

150

69.00

12.08

Accommodative

152

61.55

11.33

Standard
Error
1.35

t-Value
5.11*

*Significant at 0.01 level

The above table 7 represents the data of achievement in science of convergent and
accommodative learning style of secondary school students. Mean values are 69.00
and 61.55 for convergent and accommodative style learner respectively. T value is
5.11 which is significant at 0.001 level. It can be infer that there is significant
difference in achievement of the students following convergent and accommodative
learning style. This difference is significant at 0.01 level in favor of convergent
learning style.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Table 8. Difference between achievements and learning style of divergent and accommodative groups

Learning Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Divergent

101

60.92

10.94

Accommodative

152

61.55

11.53

Standard
Error
1.43

t-Value
0.46*

*Not Significant

The above table 8 represents that there is no significant difference in achievement

of the students following divergent and accommodative learning style. T value is 0.46
which is not significant.
Table 9. Difference between achievements and learning style of accommodative and assimilative
groups

Learning Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Accommodative

152

61.55

11.33

Assimilative

97

57.68

11.10

Standard
Error

1.46

t-Value

2.35*

*Significant at 0.01 level

The above table 9 represents that there is significant difference in achievement of

the students following accommodative and assimilative learning styles. This
difference is significant at 0.01 level in favor of accommodative learning style.
Table 10. Difference between achievements and learning style of divergent and assimilative groups

Learning
Styles

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

Divergent

101

60.92

10.94

Assimilative

97

57.68

11.10

Standard
Error
1.56

t-Value
2.27*

*Significant at 0.01 level

Table 10 represents that there is significant difference in achievement of the

students following divergent and assimilative learning style but this difference is not
significant at 0.01 level.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology
Table 11. Difference between achievements of more and less scientific attitudes students of
convergent group

Level of Scientific
attitude

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

More
attitude

scientific 106

69.50

12.25

Less
attitude

scientific 44

69.15

9.63

Standard
Error
1.87

t-Value
0.21*

*Not Significant

Table 11 shows the mean value of more and less scientific attitudes students which
are 69.00 and 69.15 respectively. T value is 0.21 which is not significant. Thus it can
be said that there is no significant difference in achievement of students having more
and less scientific attitude. Thus the above hypothesis is accepted.
Table 12. Difference between achievements of more and less scientific attitudes students of divergent
group

Level of S.A.

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

More S.A.

40

65.25

10.45

Less S.A

61

57.16

9.83

Standard
Error
2.07

t-Value
3.98*

*Significant at 0.01 level

Table 12 reveals that there is significant difference in achievement of students with

more and less scientific attitude following divergent learning style. The present
difference is significant at 0.01 level in favor of students having more scientific
attitude. Thus the above hypothesis is rejected.
Table 13. Difference between achievements of more and less scientific attitudes students of
assimilative group

Level of S.A.

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

More S.A

40

65.13

9.60

Less S.A

57

55.95

11.50

Standard
Error
2.14

t-Value
1.99*

*Not Significant

The above table 13 shows mean of achievement of more and less science attitude
students which are 65.13 and 55.95 and t value is 1.99 which is not significant. So it
can be said that there is no significant difference in achievement of students having
more and less scientific attitude.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology

Table 14. Difference between achievements of more and less scientific attitudes students of
accommodative group

Level of Scientific
attitude

No. of
Students

Mean of
Achievement

Standard
Deviation

More
attitude

scientific 88

64.44

10.67

Less
attitude

scientific 64

57.70

11.07

Standard
Error
1.78

t-Value
3.58*

* Significant at 0.01 level

The above table 14 shows the mean values of more and less scientific students of
accommodative group of learning style which are 64.44 and 57.70 and t value is 3.58
which is significant. So it can be infer that there is significant difference in
achievement of students with more and less scientific attitude and less.
9. Conclusions
In this investigation it was found clearly that each and every student have a
different learning style. In sub-categories of learning style i.e. Divergent, Convergent,
Assimilative and Accommodative there is a diversity among students. Students having
more scientific attitude falls down in convergent type of learning style in large
number but on other had students having low scientific attitude falls in
accommodative and divergent type of learning style. Achievement in science subject
was related to learning style of students. Within the sub-categories of learning style
students achieved significant different achievement is science subject. Achievement in
science subject was directly related with scientific attitude. Students having more
scientific attitude scores more in science subject in comparison to their counterpart.
References
1.

Afif, H.N.(1997). The Effect of Accommodative Students, Learning Styles on Academic

Achievement and Attitude Toward Algebra. Dissertation Abstracts International, Oct, 58(4), P1277-A.
2. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6th ed.). New York; McMillan Publishing Company.
3. Best, J.W. and Kahn J.V. (2001), Research in Education, (7th ed.), New Delhi; Prentice Hall of
India.
4. Bruner, J. (1960). Learning and Thinking, Harward Education Review, in Ausubel, D.P. Novak,
J.D. and Hanesion H. (1978), Educational Psychology A Cognitive View. (2nd ed.), New York;
Halt Rinehar and Wintson, Inc.
5. Burkely, S. (1993). Field Independent/Field Dependent Cognitive Styles on Japanese Students
and Correlation with Their Academic Achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 93(9),
P-3090-A.
6. Dani, D.N. (1984). Scientific Attitude and Cognitive Style of Higher Secondary Students, in M.B.
Buch (Ed.), Fourth survey of Research in Education (1983-88), New Delhi; N.C.E.R.T.
Publication, P-358.
7. Gibson, E.J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts
8. Joy, N.B. (1991). An Investigation of The Impact of Learning Styles Factor on College Students,
Relation and Achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 93(9), P-3121-A.
9. Laycock, Don. (1978). A Little Mor. In Wurm, S. A. and Carrington, Lois (eds.), Second
International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings. Fascicle 1: Western
Austronesian, 285-291. Canberra: Australian National University.
10. Marie S.J. (1996). Self Efficiency Attribution and Attitude towards Science among High School
Students, Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(6), P-2424-A.

Ravi Kant, Murli Dhar Singh /Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology
11. Noorjahan, G. (1993). The Relationship Between Cognitive Style and School Achievement.
Indian Educational Abstracts, July-1997, No. 3, P-17.
12. Siegel, C. (1994). Scores on the 16 personality factor questionnaire and success in college
calculus. Psychological Reports, 75, 348-350.
13. Srivastava, P. (1992). A Study to Determine The Relationship Between Cognitive Style,
Educational Interest, Learning Style and Academic Achievement, in J.P. Sharma(Ed.) Fifth
survey of Research in Education (1988-92), Vol-II, New Delhi, N.C.E.R.T. Publication, P-1919.
14. Venugopal G. (1994). Cognitive Style and Achievement of Pupils. Experiment in Education,
Volume-XXII, P-187-193.
15. Verma, B.P. & Kumari, B. (1988). Learning Style Preferences of Senior Secondary Students in
Relation To Their Sex. Journal of Education and Psychology, Volume-III, 1988-89, P-85.

10