نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license I Open Access I


1 کارشناسی ارشد رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدة تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

2 استاد رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدة تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

3 دانشیار رفتار حرکتی، دانشکدة تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران


پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی رابطة سبک‌های یادگیری و سبک‌های شناختی در بین دانشجویان دختر و پسر با اثر تعدیل‌کنندگی مقاطع تحصیلی و جنسیت انجام گرفت. بدین‌منظور 350 نفر از دانشجویان مقاطع کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد به روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی خوشه‌ای انتخاب شدند و پرسشنامه‌های سبک‌های یادگیری کلب (1985) و سبک‌های شناختی ویتکین (1971) را تکمیل کردند. داده‌ها با استفاده از روش‌های آماری همبستگی پیرسون، تی‌ مستقل و تحلیل واریانس چندمتغیره بررسی شد. نتایج نشان داد که بین سبک‌های شناختی و متغیرهای مربوط به سبک‌های یادگیری همبستگی معناداری وجود ندارد. همچنین همبستگی معناداری بین سن و سبک‌های شناختی و متغیرهای سبک‌های یادگیری به‌جز در آزمایشگری فعال مشاهده نشد. با این حال همبستگی معناداری بین سبک‌های یادگیری به‌دست آمد. نتایج بررسی تفاوت‌های گروهی نشان داد که دانشجویان کارشناسی نسبت به دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد و پسران نسبت به دختران تمایل بیشتری به سمت سبک‌شناختی وابسته به زمینه دارند. در ادامه تفاوت آماری معناداری بین سطوح تحصیلی و جنسیت در سبک‌های یادگیری مشاهده نشد. دانشجویان کارشناسی نسبت به دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد و پسران نسبت به دختران تمایل بیشتری به سمت سبک‌شناختی وابسته به زمینه دارند، به‌نظر می‌رسد سبک و جنسیت در ارتباط خود با اولویت‌ها تعامل دارند.


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Relationship between Learning Styles and Cognitive Styles in Athletic Students with the Moderating Effect of Academic Levels and Gender

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zohreh Khalilpour 1
  • Mohammadtaghi Aghdasi 2
  • Seyed Hojjat Zamani Sani 3

1 university

2 Prof. Motor behavior, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

3 University of Tabriz

چکیده [English]

It is the basis of every human being's progress in learning, which is in fact one of the most difficult concepts to define. In a successful educational system, students' learning style is always considered as one of the factors affecting academic achievement. Knowledge of students' learning style helps teachers to make optimal use of various learning styles and adopt appropriate teaching methods.

The present study was conducted to investigate the relationship between learning styles and cognitive styles among male and female students with the moderating effect of academic levels and gender. For this purpose, 350 undergraduate and graduate students were selected by cluster random sampling method and completed questionnaires of Kolbe's learning styles (1985) and Whitkin's cognitive styles (1971). Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation, independent t-test and multivariate analysis of variance. Results showed that there is no significant correlation between cognitive styles and variables related to learning styles. Also, there was no significant correlation between age and cognitive styles and variables of learning styles, except in active experiments. However, there was a significant correlation between learning styles. The results of group differences showed that undergraduate students tend to be more dependent on the cognitive style than those of masters and boys. There was no statistically significant difference between educational levels and gender in learning styles. Undergraduate students are more inclined toward contextual cognitive styles than graduate students and boys than girls, and style and gender seem to interact with preferences.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cognitive styles
  • educational levels
  • gender
  • learning styles
  • students
  1. Sarchami R, Hosseini S. Relationship between learning styles and academic achievement of Qazvin nursing students. Journal of Inflammatory Diseases 2004;8(1):64. (in persian)
  2. Du Gas BW. Principles of Patient Care: Holistic approach in nursing. Trans Frozan Atashzadeh Shorideh, al Ed malahat nikravan Tehran Golban. 2002.
  3. Shaabani H. Educational skills (Methods and techniques of teaching). Tehran, Iran: Samt; 2011.
  4. Bastable SB. Nurse as educator: principles of teaching and learning. AJN Am J Nurs. 1998;98(6):16L.
  5. Hsu CHC. Learning styles of hospitality students: Nature or nurture? Int J Hosp Manag. 1999;18(1):17–30.
  6. Dunn R. How To Implement and Supervise a Learning Style Program. ERIC; 1996.
  7. Pazargadi M, Tahmasebi S. Learning styles and their application in nursing. 2010;
  8. ALQahtani DA, Al-Gahtani SM. Assessing learning styles of Saudi dental students using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. J Dent Educ. 2014;78(6):927–33.
  9. Meyari A, SABOURI KA, Gharib M, BEYGLARKHANI M. Comparison between the learning style of medical freshmen and fifth-year students and its relationship with their educational achievement. 2009.
  10. Sutcliffe L. An investigation into whether nurses change their learning style according to subject area studied. J Adv Nurs. 1993;18(4):647–58.
  11. Fowler P. Learning styles of radiographers. Radiography. 2002;8(1):3–11.
  12. Ridley MJ, Spence HK, Goldenberg D. The effect of a senior preceptorship on the adaptive competencies of community college nursing students. J Adv Nurs. 1995;22(1):58–65.
  13. Chen L-H. Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive styles. Comput Educ. 2010;54(4):1028–35.
  14. Robertson IT. Human information-processing strategies and style. Behav Inf Technol. 1985;4(1):19–29.
  15. Chang Y-C, Kao W-Y, Chu C-P, Chiu C-H. A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Comput Educ. 2009;53(2):273–85.
  16. Sadler-Smith E. The relationship between learning style and cognitive style. Pers Individ Dif. 2001;30(4):609–16.
  17. Diener E, Lucas RE. Personality and Subjective Well-Being Across the Life Span. In: Temperament and Personality Development Across the Life Span. Psychology Press; 2000: 221–44.
  18. Robotham D. Self-directed learning: the ultimate learning style? J Eur Ind Train. 1995;19(7):3–7.
  19. Tennant M. Psychology and adult learning. Routledge; 2007.
  20. Witkin HA, Oltman PK, Raskin E, Karp SA. A manual for the embedded figure test. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1971.
  21. Angeli C, Valanides N. Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2004;52(4):23–36.
  22. Musser T. Individual differences: How field dependence-independence affects learners. Retrieved Novemb. 1998;9:2008.
  23. Griggs SA. Learning Styles Counseling. ERIC; 1991.
  24. Tsakanikos E. Associative learning and perceptual style: Are associated events perceived analytically or as a whole? Pers Individ Dif. 2006;40(3):579–86.
  25. Isfahani Agahi B, Neshat Doost H, Naili H. Investigating the Stylistic Relationship between Independence - Field Dependence and Creativity. Journal of Psychology. 2004;8(1):37-51.(in persian)
  26. Ahadi F, Abedsaidi J, Arshadi F, Ghorbani R. Learning styles of nursing and allied health students in Semnan university of medical sciences. koomesh. 2010;11(2):141–6.
  27. Wilkin HA, Oltman PK, Raskin E, Karp SA. A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1971.
  28. Bosacki S, Innerd W, Towson S. Field Independence-Dependence and Self-Esteem in Preadolescents: Does Gender Make a Difference? J Youth Adolesc. 1997;26(6):691–703.
  29. Ghaffarzadeh Ahangar S, Shafi Nia P, Shetab Bushehri S, Ghotbi Varzaneh A. Comparison of simple and selective visual and auditory reaction time in context-dependent and context-independent cognitive styles. Journal of Sports Management and Motor Behavior. 2013;9(17):131–42. (in persian)
  30. Qutbi Varzaneh A, Zarghami M, Saemi A, Maleki F. The effect of cognitive styles: The role of working memory. Journal of Motor Development and Learning. 2012;4(2):61–78. (in persian)
  31. Qutbi Varzaneh A, Ghamari A, Saemi E, Zarghami M. Individual differences in working memory and motor performance: A cognitive style approach. Am J Psychol Res 7 (1), 31. 2011;42.
  32. Riding R, Cheema I. Cognitive styles an overview and integration. Educ Psychol. 1991;11(3–4):193–215.
  33. Yan JH. Cognitive styles affect choice response time and accuracy. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48(6):747–51.
  34. Liu WH, Chepyator-Thomson JR, others. Associations among field dependence-independence, sports participation, and physical activity level among school children. J Sport Behav. 2009;32(2):130–46.
  35. Apitzsch E, Liu WH. Correlation between field dependence-independence and handball shooting by Swedish national male handball players. Percept Mot Skills. 1997;84(3_suppl):1395–8.
  36. Raviv S, Nabel N. Field dependence/independence and concentration as psychological characteristics of basketball players. Percept Mot Skills. 1988;66(3):831–6.
  37. Raviv S, Nabel N. Relationship between two different measurements of field-dependence and athletic performance of adolescents. Percept Mot Skills. 1990;70(1):75–81.
  38. Setiawan A, Wawan, Koder, Pratiwi W. The effect of cognitive styles on reasoning and problem solving ability. J Math Educ Teach. 2020;1(2).
  39. Hohn RL. Classroom learning & teaching. Allyn & Bacon; 1995.
  40. Tinajero C, Páramo MF. Field dependence–independence and strategic learning. Int J Educ Res [Internet]. 1998;29(3):251–62.
  41. Ates S, Cataloglu E. The effects of students’ cognitive styles on conceptual understandings and problem‐solving skills in introductory mechanics. Res Sci Technol Educ [Internet]. 2007;25(2):167–78.
  42. Karimnejad Niarq S, Ainparast N, Alavian F. The relationship between cognitive styles and personality traits with academic achievement. Two Care Quarterly Today. 2010;6(18–19):5–13. (in persian)
  43. Jegede O, Fan RYK, Chan MSC, Yum J, Taplin M. Locus of control and metacognition in open and distance learning: A comparative study of low and high achievers. In: 13th Annual Conference of the Asia Association of Open Universities (AAOU). 1999: 14–7.
  44. Liu W, Chepyator-Thomson JR. Field dependence--independence and physical activity engagement among middle school students. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2009;14(2):125–36.
  45. Rezaei A. Relationship between club learning methods and learning styles of Hani and Mumford with student's age and academic performance. Educational Psychology (Psychology and Educational Sciences). 2010;6(18):1–18. (in persian)
  46. Rahiminia E, Rahiminia hoorieh, Sharifirad G. Assessment of Kolb’s Learning Styles among College Students of Qom University of Medical Sciences. edujournal. 2017;9(24):24–32. (in persian)
  47. Mpwanya MF, Dockrat S. Assessing learning styles of undergraduate logistics students using Kolb’s learning style inventory: A cross-sectional survey. South African J High Educ. 2020;34(3).
  48. Olanipekun T, Effoe V, Bakinde N, Bradley C, Ivonye C, Harris R. Learning Styles of Internal Medicine Residents and Association With the In-Training Examination Performance. J Natl Med Assoc. 2020;112(1).
  49. Farajollahi M., Najafi H., Nosrati Hashi K., Najafiyan S. Relationship between learning styles and academic achievement of university students. Edu-Str-Med-Sci. 2013;6(2):83–8. (in persian)
  50. Guillot A, Collet C. Field dependence--independence in complex motor skills. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98(2):575–83.
  51. Lambrecht JL, Cuevas JL. Field dependence-independence as related to young women’s participation in sports activity. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;104(3):1076–8.