Exploring Relationships Betwee

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1351–1377
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9835-y
Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles

and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers:
A mixed study
Rıdvan Ata 1 & Mustafa Cevik 2
Received: 9 September 2018 / Accepted: 2 November 2018 / Published online: 22 November 2018
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
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 quali-
tative 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.
Keywords Mobile learning . Kolb’s learning styles . Pre-service teachers . Structural

equation modelling
* Rıdvan Ata
ridvanata@mu.edu.tr
Mustafa Cevik
mustafacevik@kmu.edu.tr
1352 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1351–1377
1 Introduction
New generation students ask for more flexibility in e-learning. Mobile devices offer a
solution for this situation by removing obstacles such as limited time and space. M-
learning makes e-learning even more convenient by meeting the needs of those who
prefer to learn anytime anywhere that are bases of e-learning (Hutchison et al. 2008).
While m-learning, which is also considered as the extension of “ubiquitous learning”
(Liu and Hwang 2010), ensures learning anytime and anywhere, it also provides
opportunities for lifelong learning, self-paced learning, self-directed/regulated learning
and equality of opportunity in education. In this context, m-learning in which teaching
and learning are met through mobile devices such as Personal Digital Assistants
(PDAs), smartphones, portable media players and smartphones has increasingly be-
come part of the education sector, both in formal and informal settings, in the age of
“internet of things” (Khan et al. 2012). The driving factors here are the mobility of
technology, learning contents and learners (Traxler 2007). Smartphones are the mobile
devices with the widest user population. The number of smartphone users is forecasted
to grow to around 2.5 billion in 2019 all over the world (Statistica 2018). In Turkey,
infrastructure and internet connection opportunities were enhanced in schools and
almost 1.5 million tablets were delivered to students and teachers by December 2015
and it is stated that this number will be increased to nearly 11 million between 2016 and
2019 in the scope of the Movement of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving
Technology (FATIH) project (Çalışkan 2017).
Although learning styles are classified in various forms, Kolb’s learning styles model,
which is also relevant to e-learning, based on the experiential learning theory is widely
cited and has come to dominate in the empirical research in the literature (Loo 2002).
Except Kolb’s learning style model, for instance Tortorella and Graf (2017) examine
context-awareness and learning styles proposed by Felder and Silverman (1988), who
classify learners based on four dimension: active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-
verbal and sequential-global, for mobile adaptive learning. Their model was suggested
to be often used in research related to learning styles in advanced learning technologies.
However, Kolb’s learning style model was adopted in this research as it is a well-
established model which has been widely used and validated in the literature (Buckley
and Doyle 2017; Manolis et al. 2013). To get back to Kolb’s learning style model, the
experiential learning theory is based on the studies of Dewey who takes the experience as
base in learning, Lewin who emphasizes the importance of active participation of
individuals in the learning process, Piaget who characterises the intelligence as not only
an innate trait but as a result of the interaction between individuals and the environment.
The dimensions that Kolb reveals about learning styles are prehension and transformation
and the model is a four-step cycle refer to concrete experience (CE), reflective observa-
tion (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE), which is
presented in Fig. 1. In general, CE requires the full participation of individuals in an
activity, RO requires the development of different perspectives, AC requires the acqui-
sition of theoretical knowledge, and AE requires the implementation of knowledge.
Through a graphic profile pointed out on the Learning-Style Type Grid, learners may
be identified with one of the following four styles: namely, Diverger, Assimilator,
Converger, and Accommodator. The Diverging learning style is the combination of CE
and RO. The divergers potentially have different perspectives for concrete situations
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1351–1377 1353
Fig. 1 Kolb’s learning styles (revised from Kolb 1999)
and prefer to observe rather than acting immediately in any case. They tend to be imaginative
and emotional and like to generate ideas using imagination, perception, identifying problems
and evaluating with different perspectives and changing are stated as strengths of students
with this learning style. Weak aspects are stated in the form of difficulty in choosing between
options, difficulty in making decisions, and inability to assess learning opportunities from
time to time. The assimilating learning style covers AE and RO. The Assimilators are quite
successful in making broad and comprehensive information into a logical whole. It is seen
that learners with the assimilating learning style have the ability to plan and identify
problems, while they are often inadequate to follow a systematic approach in applied
practices. It is stated that they need to improve themselves in organizing information,
constructing conceptual models, testing hypotheses and theories and considering probabil-
ities rather than existing situations. Learners with the assimilating learning style tend to learn
by listening and watching and focus on abstract concepts and ideas as well as consider the
teachers as the most important source of the information. The converging learning style is
the combination of AC and AE. They are the practitioners of ideas. It is emphasized that
these individuals have deductive reasoning and advanced logical analysis, appropriate
decision making and problem solving skills and prefer to deal with technical issues rather
than social and interpersonal activities. The accommodating learning style is the combina-
tion of AE and CE. The accommodators have the ability to take advantage of the
experiences already acquired. Such learners are with the leadership skills and prefer to use
interpersonal relationships and consult personal information of others rather than technical
solutions. They are considered curious and investigative and stand out with initiative,
flexibility and open-mindedness features (Kolb 1984, 1999, 2000).
1.1 Research objective
There exist a few studies that examine relations between mobile learning and learning
styles. An example is the research by Karimi (2016) indicates that individuals’ learning
style has a significant effect on the m-learning adoption. Sun et al. (2018) point out that
the learning style with active information processing has positive impacts on the m-
learning behaviours. Abdullah et al. (2015) reveal that students’ performance in e-
learning environment increase when considering their preference. Similaryly, Lu and
Yang (2018) state that a significant correlation exists between learning style and
achievement in m-learning. Furthermore, Kim et al. (2017) reveal that individuals with
a high level of innovativeness enjoy and adopt m-learning. While these findings are
promising, further research is required to build the evidence base in this area. System-
atic use of m-learning practices for educational purposes in both formal and informal
learning settings is still a relatively nascent and emerging field of practice and research.
Therefore there appears to be a need to intimately explore the different factors such as
learning styles and demographics influencing user’s behavioral intention and willing-
ness for the sustainable m-learning deployment as the relevant literature indicates that
the role of learning styles as they relate to the usability of m-learning environments has
not been extensively examined in mobile settings (Zamzuri et al. 2010). Besides, Kim
et al. (2017) point out that understanding who prefers such a learning approach and
adopts it is crucial from the perspective of innovation diffusion and how to promote
students’ active participation and permanent learning.
On the other hand, one of the important ways of quality education is to create a learning
environment suitable for individual differences. It is important to identify learning styles of
students and provide appropriate education suits these styles in order to realize permanent
learning. No doubt, learning environments have increased with the rapid scientific and
technological developments and the ways and means of accessing information reveal the
importance of individual characteristics and differences that influence learning. It is an
undeniable fact that education technologies do not make positive progress all the time in all
students. However, in all cases mobile devices become a big part of our lives and penetrated
in teaching-learning processes. It is important to be able to respond to inquiries based on
research such as in which dimension of the learning process mobile devices are more
effective, what purposes it can be used for, and more successful for the which learning style
and ensure that these devices are used more effectively in education. If m-learning would
become disseminated in higher education, the learning characteristics of learners ought to be
taken into consideration in order to promote users’ adoption of m-learning. Likewise, some
researchers state that m-learning removes differences emerged due to learning styles
(Gülbahar 2017). Therefore perhaps learning styles are not influential as considered.
Furthermore, while m-learning is being widely adopted in educationally developed coun-
tries, the adoption of such an approach in developing countries is still immature and
underdeveloped (Al-Adwan et al. 2018). Similarly, there appears to be still existence of
unequal diffusion of technologies and digital divide in Turkey. Thus it is important to
investigate students’ learning styles and their readiness to adopt m-learning in developing
countries, especially in Turkey. Eventually, this study seeks answers to following questions:
1.2 Research focus
Accordingly, our research question are as follows:
1. “To what extent learning styles predict pre-service teachers’ m-learning readiness?”
2. “What are the relationships between mobile readiness of pre-service teachers and a
set of variables by learning styles?”
3. “What do pre-service teachers think about m-learning within the context of their
learning styles?
The paper is structured as follows: The next section describes methods and instruments
used to gather the data. Section 3 gives an in depth presentation of findings as a whole.
The evaluation and interpretation of findings is introduced in Sections 4 and 5 discusses
limitations and future works.
2 Methodology
2.1 Background
This research was designed in the mixed model, in which quantitative and qualitative
data instruments were used together. Creswell (2013) expresses the mixed model as
obtaining and analysing the quantitative and qualitative data together. The research was
carried out within the convergent parallel design from mixed designs and in two stages.
The first stage is the quantitative component of the research. The quantitative compo-
nent was designed in the relational research model and the relationships between m-
learning readiness levels of the participants and their learning styles by different
variables were explored. In this context, ANOVA from the statistical tests and Struc-
tural Equation Modelling (SEM), which is a frequently used method of data analysis in
relational research as it allows to examine the predictive relationships between variables
(Fraenkel et al. 2012), were applied in order to explain predictor relationships between
variables. The second stage is the qualitative component of the research. At the stage,
the case study was carried out.
2.2 Participants
The study group consisted of 350 (2 of 352 participants were removed as their data
were missing) pre-service teachers including 263 (75.1%) female and 87 (24.9%) male
in different branches from 5 different state universities in Turkey. The participants
involved in the present study were on a voluntary basis and from 4 different regions of
Turkey that are north, southeast, south and west. In this context, it can be said that the
participants involved in the present study have different cultural background and are
from different departments/majors, which can reflect the holistic characteristics of
students enrolled in education faculties in Turkey. Other descriptive information re-
garding participants of the study is given in Table 1. The convenience sampling method
was adopted within non-random sampling methods in the quantitative stage of the
study. The homogeneous sampling method which is one of the purposive sampling
methods was used in the qualitative stage of the study. Quantitative and qualitative parts
of the research usually do not have groups of the same size in mixed method studies.
The study group in which qualitative data are obtained often consists of fewer individ-
uals selected within the group of quantitative data (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). In
parallel with this expression, the qualitative study group was identified from the
quantitative study group depending on the purposive sampling strategy. Merriam and
Tisdell (2015) states that for this strategy, firstly selection criteria ought to be
Table 1 Descriptive information regarding participants
established for which individual would take part in the study group. In this direction, in
the selection of the qualitative study group; the pre-service participants who provide
fruitful information formed the qualitative part of the study.
As seen in Table 1, the majority of the pre-service participants are females. It was
observed that the majority of the participants are in a young age range and their
departments are in equiponderant, social and science studies, respectively. It was seen
that parent educational background became dense in primary and secondary education.
Participants seem to prefer smartphones as the mobile communication medium and
they use the internet more than 3–4 h per day.
2.3 Instrument and procedures
The data collection instruments were classified as quantitative and qualitative data
collection tools as required by mixed method studies. In this context, Kolb’s Learning
Styles Inventory - Version III and Mobile Learning Readiness Scale were administered
as quantitative data collection tools. An unstructured interview form was developed by
researchers as the qualitative data collection tool. Quantitative and qualitative data
collection tools were structured within digital forms and applied to participants online
through Google Forms. Detailed information regarding the scales was given in the
following paragraphs.
2.3.1 Kolb’s learning styles inventory - version III (KLSI-III)
There are 12 items on the scale. The four options in each item are scored between 1 and
4. The lowest score on the scale is 12, the highest score is 48. After this scoring, unified
scores are calculated. Unified scores are obtained in the form of Abstract Conceptual-
ization (AC) - Concrete Experience (SC) and Active Experimentation (AE) and
Reflective Observation (RO) and the scores obtained as a result of this process range
from −36 to +36. Positive score obtained by AC-SC indicates that the learning is
abstract, whereas the negative score is concrete; similarly scores obtained by AE-RO
indicate that the learning is active or reflective. Unified scores are plotted on the
coordinate system.The score obtained by AE-RO is plotted on the horizontal axis
and the score obtained by AC-SC is plotted on the vertical axis and the intersection
of these two scores represents the individual’s learning style. Validity and reliability
analysis of the inventory were made. Values close to the original values of the inventory
were observed. Prior to factor analysis, Kayser-Mayer Olkin (KMO) value was exam-
ined and the Bartlett’s significance test was performed. The KMO value of the
inventory is .89, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is .00. These values indicate that
factor analysis could be performed (Çokluk et al. 2010). Factor analysis confirmed that
the inventory consisted of 4 sub-dimensions, and these dimensions explain 52% of the
overall variance of the inventory. The literature indicates that it is sufficient for each
factor to explain 40% of the total variance (Büyüköztürk 2010). It was observed that
while the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the overall inventory is .91, the
reliability coefficient of the CE is .77, the reliability coefficient of the AE is .77 the
reliability coefficient of the AC is .85 and the reliability coefficient of the RO is .73.
Given the validity and reliability values of the inventory, it is can be seen that
the inventory is appropriate to use in the research. After this process, a
numerical value was given to each learning style and the learning styles of
the participants were recorded into the computer platform accordingly. The
numerical values obtained for each learning styles of the individual were
transferred to the document containing the data for personal information. Calculation
of each data is shown in Fig. 2.
2.3.2 Mobile learning readiness scale (MLRS)
The scale developed by Lin et al. (2016) and adapted to Turkish by

Gökçearslan et al. (2017) includes 17 items and 3 factors; namely, optimism,
self-efficacy and self-directed learning. The 7-point Likert scale is pointed as
(1) “totally disagree” and (7) “totally agree”. The analysis of validity and
reliability of the study performed again. Values close to the original values of
the scale were obtained. Prior to factor analysis, Kayser-Mayer Olkin (KMO)
values and the Bartlett significance test were examined. The KMO value of the
scale is .92, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity is .00. These values indicate
that factor analysis could be performed. Subsequently, factor analysis confirmed
AC-CE
0 Percentiles -27
Accommodating -15
-2
10
-7
20
Accommodating Diverging
3
AE-RO 30 -3
9 6
12
0
40 1
3
AE-RO 50
28 21 20 18 12 6 3 0 -5 -6 -10 -13 -15 -21
60
10
70
12
Converging Assimilating
80
15
90
20
25
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
AC-CE
Fig. 2 Learning style analysis grid
that the scale consisted of 3 sub-dimensions and these dimensions explain 71%
variance of the scale. While the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the
whole scale is .94, it was observed that the reliability coefficient of the self-
efficacy sub-dimension is .91, the reliability coefficient of the optimism sub-
dimension is .92 and the reliability coefficient of the self-directed learning is .84.
2.3.3 The interview form
A structured form (Yıldırım and Şimşek 2006) consisting of 4 open-ended questions

was developed by researchers in order to deeply determine the opinions of pre-service
teachers regarding m-learning. The prepared questions were reviewed by an academic
specialized in the information and measurement field and the form was finalized in the
direction of feedbacks. The question distribution of the theme of the form is as shown
in Fig. 3.
While the advantages and disadvantages of m-learning have one theme
each in the context of learning styles, there is also one theme to identify
factors that make m-learning easier and difficult. Each theme has come to an
open-ended question.
2.4 Data analysis
Necessary permissions were obtained in order to use the data collection instruments in the
study and the scales were applied to pre-service teachers simultaneously with the inter-
view form. After the data were coded into the computer platform, the distribution
characteristics of the data set were examined to identify whether the data were appropriate
for parametric statistical analysis. For this purpose, the extreme values were examined by
Learning
Advantages Styles
of
m-learning
Disadvantages m-learning
of Themes facilitating
m-learning factors
Disadvantages
of
m-learning
Fig. 3 Themes for the interview form
means of the kurtosis and skewness coefficients, and it can be said that no variables were
outside this range using the ±2.0 benchmark value (Trochim and Donnelly 2006; Field
2009). The data obtained in the study were analyzed by considering sub-questions of the
research. For the first sub-research question, ANOVA analysis was performed using SPSS
24.0 program. Tukey HSD test and Pearson Correlation Coefficient were used to observe
the source of the difference. The significance level of .05 was adopted in interpreting the
results. For the second sub-research question, the Structural Equation Modelling, in which
the relationships between one or more independent variables, one or dependent variables,
either continuoıs or discrete (Ullman and Bentler 2003) were analyzed by path analysis
(Kaplan and Haenlein 2010). The results were obtained using AMOS 21.0 program. The
reason of using this method was that the new model proposed in the study had more than
one dependent variable associated with more than one independent variable and that the
entire model ought to be tested as a whole in the same process. While the internet use
frequency and the mobile communication tool were included as predictor latent variables
in each learning styles in the model, independent variables were included as predictor
observed variables in the model. M-learning, which was the dependent variable of the
research, is included in the model with three sub-dimensions namely optimism, self-
efficacy and self-directed learning. X2, Sd, ×2/Sd, GFI, CFI, NFI, TLI, SRMR and
RMSEA fit indices were considered in model fit assessment in the structural equation
modelling established for path analysis. The goodness of fit index criterion values used to
interpret the model fit are given in Table 2 (Kline 2005).
Although RMSEA SRMR GFI / CFI / NFI / NNFI Perfect Fit 0,05 ≤ 0,05 ≥ 0,95 and
Good Fit ≤0,08 ≤ 0,08 ≥ 0,90 values are affected by the sample size and therefore
ignored in researches, the ×2/sd statistic was also examined along with the goodness
of fit values given in Table 3 in order to interpret the model fit. According to Marsh and
Hocevar (1988), ×2/sd < 5 indicates an adequate fit. According to Kline (2005),
×2/sd <3 indicates a perfect fit.
Table 2 Criterion values for fit

Fit indices RMSEA SRMR GFI/CFI/NFI/NNFI
indices
Perfect fit 0.05 ≤0.05 ≥0.95
Good fit ≤0.08 ≤0.08 ≥0.90
For the third sub-research question, data collected by interviews were analyzed using the
content analysis method. The responses of the participants were coded, expressed in terms
of frequency and percentage. The responses of the participants with each learning style were
categorized separately. Findings were supported by direct excerpts partly. The themes were
formed by two experts except the researchers. The responses within the themes and sub-
themes were coded by the researchers and the number of common codes was 25 and the
number of individual codes was 8. In this context, the observer reliability was calculated by
the [(Agreement/Agreement + Disagreement)*100] formula (Miles and Huberman 1994).
The observer reliability for this study was (25/25 + 8) * 100) = 75%. Later on, 8 codes were
discussed, evaluated and asked to a third expert. It was decided that these codes should also
be included in the analysis and these codes were included witin the closest meaningful
codes. Codes were grouped by theme and given by frequency and percentage values.
3 Results
3.1 Statistical findings regarding to what extent learning styles predict pre-service
teachers’ m-learning readiness
Finding related to the learning styles of the pre-service teachers participating in the
study are given in Table 3.
As seen in Table 3, while 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.
The results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the rela-
tionship between learning styles and m-learning readiness levels of the pre-
service teachers are given in Table 4.
As seen in Table 4, m-learning readiness levels of the pre-service teachers vary
according to their learning styles. The ANOVA test was performed to determine
whether this difference was significant. The Tukey-HSD test was used to determine
the direction of the difference. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that there was
Table 3 Learning style distribu-

Learning styles F %
tions of the pre-service teachers
Assimilating 126 36
Diverging 92 26,29
Converging 73 20,85
Accommodating 59 16,85
TOTAL 350 100
Table 4 ANOVA test results on the significance of difference between learning styles and m-learning
readiness levels of pre-service teachers
M-learning sub-dimensions Learning styles N X sd f p
Optimism Assimilating 126 35.26 349 4.75 .00*

Diverging 92 34.69
Converging 73 37.64
Accommodating 59 39.47
Self-directed learning Assimilating 126 19.89 349 7.18 .00*
Diverging 92 19.55
Converging 73 22.34
Accommodating 59 22
Self-efficacy Assimilating 126 29.19 349 5.75 .00*
Diverging 92 28.92
Converging 73 32.04
Overall Assimilating 126 84.34 349 7.56 .00*
Diverging 92 83.17
Converging 73 92.02
*p < .05
a statistically significant difference for optimism, self-directed learning and self-

efficacy sub-dimensions and the overall scale. It was identified that there was a
statistically difference between diverging and converging in favour of converging,
between diverging and accommodating in favour of accommodating and between
assimilating and accommodating in favour of accommodating learning style
(F (.59) optimism = 4.75 p < .05), (F(1.89) self-directed learning = 7.18 p < .05), (F(.65) self-efficacy =
5.75 p < .05), (F(.12) overall = 7.56 p < .05). In general, it can be said that there was a
statistically significant relationship between the learning styles of the pre-service teachers
and their m-learning readiness levels as a result of the analysis. In addition, it was observed
that there was a higher significance relationship between pre-service teachers with
converging and accommodating learning styles and their m-learning readiness.
3.2 SEM model regarding the relationships between mobile readiness of pre-service
teachers and a set of variables by learning styles
In the second sub-research question of the study, first a path diagram was prepared for
“m-learning”, which was the dependent variable, and “department, age, gender, grad-
uated high school type, parent educational background and monthly income of the
family”, which were predictor internal variables, and “internet usage frequency (IUF)”
and “mobile communication tool usage (MCTU)”, which were external predictor
variables for each learning style. This model was tested by the Amos 21.0 program
and is given in Fig. 4.
e4
1
Department Internetuse
Age
1
1 Optimism e1
Gender 1
m-learning selfdirectedlearning e2
Highschool 1
selfefficacy e3
Fathereducationalb
Mobilcomminicationtool
Mothereducationalb 1
e5
Monthlyincome
Fig. 4 The proposed path diagram for each learning style
In the model indicated in Fig. 4, model fit indices were examined before applying any
modification process but it was observed that the model did not meet the necessary
goodness of fit criteria (×2 = 687.33, sd = 53, ×2/sd = 12.96, RMSEA = .18, SRMR =
.045, CFI = .57, GFI = .64, NFI = .69, TLI = .17). On the basis of this, the proposed
modifications of the model were examined and in the direction of these suggestions
“mobile communication tool” was replaced as the predictor variable instead of the
predictor latent variable. In addition, “department, high school type, father’s educational
background” items were excluded from the predictor variables and a series of modifica-
tions were made by drawing and linking the bi-directional covariance pathways for errors
for the rest of the items. It was observed that the model after this modification process met
the necessary goodness of fit criteria, in other words, the established model fitted with the
obtained data adequately (×2 = 102.12.45, sd = 84, ×2/sd = 1.13, RMSEA = .01 (LO =
.0.0 HI = .03), SRMR = .036, CFI = .97, GFI = .96, NFI = .85, TLI = .96). The final
model within the diverging learning style as an example is shown in Fig. 5.
After examining goodness of fit index values of the model that explores m-learning
readiness of pre-service teachers with the diverging learning style in terms of different
variables, the paths and parameter estimates related to the model were examined.
Besides, the standardized values of each learning style-specific model were also tested
using the same variables in the Mplus 6.12 program to check the accuracy of the model.
As a result, it was observed that the fit values of the model and the effect sizes are rather
close to each other. Accordingly, there is no statistically insignificant way in the
structural model tested. At this stage, the effect size of path coefficients was examined
Fig. 5 The established path diagram within the diverging learning style
along with examining R2 and fit indices. According to Kline (2005), if the path
coefficient is ≤ .10, it can be interpreted as a small effect, if the path coefficient is
between .10 and .30, it can be interpreted as a moderate effect and if the path coefficient
is ≥ .50, it can be interpreted as a large effect. In the study, path coefficients were
interpreted in reference to standardized regression weights between variables consid-
ering these criteria (Table 5).
As seen in Table 5, the highest standardized regression weight coefficient is in
predicting m-learning with the optimism sub-dimension (.90), followed by self-efficacy
Table 5 Regression coefficients

Path Regression Effect size
and effect sizes of the paths de- coefficient
fined in the model
m-learning<---monthlyincome .354 (p < .05) Moderate Effect
optimism<---m-learning .905 (p < .01) Large Effect
self-directed<---m-learning .706 (p < .01) Large Effect
self-efficacy<---m-learning .734 (p < .01) Large-Effect

Path Regression coefficient Effect size
and effect sizes of the paths de-
fined in the model
optimism<---m-learning .92 (p < .01) Large effect
self-directed<---m-learning .76 (p < .01) Large effect
self-efficacy<---m-learning .51 (p < .01) Large effect

fined in the model
m-learning<---gender −.28 (p < .05) Moderate effect
(.73) and self-directed learning (.70). In addition, the coefficient in predicting m-

learning with monthly income is (.35) and it can be said that the effect size is moderate.
It can be said that monthly incomes of the pre-service teachers with the diverging
learning style have a moderate effect on their m-learning readiness. The path coeffi-
cients between the variables in the model for pre-service teachers with the assimilating
learning style are given in Table 6.
predicting m-learning with the optimism sub-dimension (.92), followed by self-directed
learning (.76) and self-efficacy (.51). It was identified that predictor observed variables
has no significant effect at the p < .05 level. The path coefficients between the variables
in the model for pre-service teachers with the converging learning style are given in
Table 7.
As seen in Table 7, the highest standardized regression weight coefficient is in predicting
m-learning with the optimism sub-dimension (.84), followed by self-efficacy (.74) and self-
directed learning (.55). In addition the effect of the gender predictor variable is moderate on
m-learning readiness (−.28). The path coefficients between the variables in the model for
pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style are given in Table 8.
predicting m-learning with the self-efficacy sub-dimension (.95), followed by optimism
(.77) and self-directed (.68). In addition, it could be said that educational background of

fined in the model
m-learning<---mothereducation −.50 (p < .01) Moderate effect
m-learning<---monthlyincome .39 (p < .01) Moderate effect
m-learning<---internetfrequency −.40 (p < .05) Moderate effect
mother, internet frequency and monthly income have a moderate effect on m-learning
readiness of the pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style.
3.3 Qualitative findings regarding pre-service teachers’ opinions about m-learning

within the context of their learning styles
In the first stage of the interview form developed to deepen the opinions of the pre-
service teachers regarding m-learning within their learning style framework, the
gathered data were analyzed by the content analysis method, coded separately by
researchers and compared and contrasted through briefings. Codes and frequencies
and percentages of these codes are given in Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12.
31 (33.69%) of the 92 participants with the diverging learning style stated that m-
learning provides more and permanent learning. The participants expressed this as follows:
Table 9 Opinions of pre-service teachers with the diverging learning style regarding m-learning
Learning style Themes Codes Frequency Percentage
Diverging 1. Advantages of m-learning Saving on time 15 16.30

Quick access to information 18 19.56
Easy and practical usage 25 27.17
Better and permanent learning 31 33.69
Free 1 1.08
No gain 2 2.17
2. Disadvantages of Time consuming 19 20.65
m-learning Distractibility 7 7.60
Disinformation 26 28.26
Laziness 16 17.39
Addiction 7 7.60
Harmful to health 5 5.43
Forgetting quickly 3 3.26
No disadvantage 9 9.78
3. M-learning facilitating Advertisement, promotion 16 17.39
factors Encouraging the use of 39 42.39
mobile devices
Spreading internet access 15 16.30
Missing data 6 6.52
No idea 16 17.39
4. M-learning difficulties Financial barrier 22 23.91
Insufficient infrastructure 34 36.95
Lack of internet 13 14.13
Personal inadequacy 7 7.60
No idea 10 10.86
Missing data 6 6.52
TOTAL 92 100
Table 10 Opinions of pre-service teachers with the assimilating learning style regarding m-learning
Assimilating 1. Advantages of Saving on time 34 26.98

m-learning Quick access to information 53 42.06
No gain 4 3.17
Laziness 10 7.93
Addiction 9 7.14
Cost 5 3.96
No disadvantages 15 11.90
factors Encouraging the use of mobile devices 42 33.33
Various apps 20 15.87
No idea 17 13.49
Cost 3 2.38
Missing data 3 2.38
4. M-learning difficulties Financial barriers 33 26.19
No idea 17 13.49
Missing data 8 6.34
TOTAL 126 100
"It allows us to learn more about a subject we do not know"

"It helps when you do not learn the topics, and repeat them. Ensures to access
new information. Ensures to save time with easy and quick access. Provides
better learning as it ensures us to learn at our own pace”
"It allows us to learn faster and learn a lot in a short time"
On the contrary, 26 (28.26%) participants stated that disinformation and lack of informa-
tion reliability are the main disadvantages of m-learning. Some excerpts are as follows:
"The accuracy of the information is not certain"

"It may not be reliable information"
“We cannot truly ensure how accurate and correct the information gained”
Table 11 Opinions of pre-service teachers with the converging learning style regarding m-learning
Converging 1. Advantages of Saving on time 18 24.65

m-learning Quick access to information 19 26.02
Visuality 1 1.36
Laziness 3 4.10
Addiction 5 6.84
Cost 3 4.10
Missing data 3 4.10
factors Encouraging the use of mobile devices 16 21.91
Cost 3 4.10
No idea 6 8.21
No idea 6 8.21
Missing data 5 6.84
TOTAL 73 100
39 (42.39%) pre-service teachers with the diverging learning style expressed that m-learning
facilitating factor would be encouraging the use of mobile communication devices. Some
excerpts are as follows:
"Teachers and students should be trained to encourage m-learning"

"Detailed information on m-learning and incentives for its use can be provided"
"The courses taught at schools may be more towards m-learning"
"Using in classroom environments in education. Using in distance education.
Coding in the new curriculum ".
34 (36.95%) pre-service teachers with the diverging learning style expressed that the
factor that made mobile learning difficult is the insufficiency of the infrastructure. Some
Table 12 Opinions of pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style regarding m-learning
Accommodating 1. Advantages of m-learning Saving on time 12 20.33

Quick access to information 20 33.89
Visuality 2 3.38
Laziness 5 8.47
Addiction 3 5.08
Cost 5 8.47
Missing Data 3 5.08
factors Encouraging the use of mobile 20 33.89
devices
Cost 2 3.38
No idea 3 5.08
No idea 6 10.16
Missing data 10 16.94
TOTAL 59 100
"Insufficient infrastructure, low connection speed"

"Narrow area of use"
"Failure to supply necessary equipment, lack of internet networks "
In the interviews with pre-service teachers with the assimilating learning style, the
largest number of participants (n = 126), 53 (42.06%) of them expressed that quick access
to information is the main advantage of m-learning. Some excerpts are as follows:
"We can achieve a lot of knowledge anytime anywhere"

"It allows us to learn faster and learn a lot in a short time"
"Saving time quick"
"M-learning allows us to reach information anywhere anytime, which is great
facility for us"
In contrast, 44 (34.92%) participants indicated that disinformation and lack of

information reliability is the main disadvantage of m-learning. Some excerpts are as
follows:
" Misinformation, a lot of unnecessary argument"
"You may have a lot of misinformation on the internet and you may sometimes
accept this information without questioning it"
"Misinformation along with the correct information"
42 (33.33%) pre-service teachers with the assimilating learning style expressed that m-
learning facilitating factor would be encouraging the use of mobile communication
devices. This is similar to pre-service teachers with the diverging learning style. Some
"It can be helpful to teach m-learning among users who do not use"
"To inform children about m-learning accurately. Directing them to m-learning
based on their willingness and abilities"
“Short time course processing over mobile”
“Educators and parents should be encouraged in this regard”
47 (37.30%) pre-service teachers with the assimilating learning style expressed that the
factor that made m-learning difficult is personal inadequacy. This is one of the points
that differ from participants with the diverging learning style. Some excerpts are as
follows:
"A lot of people do not know this and are still not taught"
"Old-fashioned thoughts"
"Information inadequacy in using m-learning systems"
"It may be difficult to teach these m-learning tools to people in places where
technology is not very well developed because they do not know and this is
different for them. They did not grow up by telephone on their hands like the
current generation"
"There may be reluctance, lack of curiosity,not to be inclined to learn "
In the interviews with pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style, 20
(33.89%) participants expressed that quick access to information is the main advantage
of m-learning. This is similar to the majority of pre-service teachers with the assimi-
lating learning style. Some excerpts are as follows:
"It allows us to access information more easily and quickly"

"It allows to reach the desired information anytime”
"It facilitates reaching in terms of time"
"Information you cannot reach under a click away"
In contrast, 12 (20.33%) participants indicated that distractibility is the main disadvan-

tage of m-learning. Some excerpts are as follows:
"Attention can be shifted to different directions"

"Missing details and stuck in molds"

"Could lead to things other than the subject to be studied"
"Causing distractibility"
This expression of the pre-service teachers with accommodating learning style

is one of the points that differ from opinions of pre-service teachers with other
learning styles.
22 (37.28%) pre-service teachers with the converging learning style expressed that
m-learning facilitating factor would be advertising and promoting the use of m-learning
and 20 (33.89%) of them indicated that m-learning facilitating factor would be encour-
aging the use of mobile communication devices. Some excerpts are as follows:
“More promotion in their daily life and social media”

"Everyone now has a smartphone, m-learning can be advertised"
"Those who are educated should be aware of effective use of m-learning."
18 (30.50%) pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style expressed that
the factor that made m-learning difficult is personal inadequacy, similar to participants
with the assimilating learning style. Some excerpts are as follows:
"The fact that teachers do not have enough knowledge to use mobile devices
prevents them from taking advantage of m-learning"
"The lack of technological knowledge will make it difficult"
“Individuals who are isolated from the technology see m-learning unnecessary”
"Traditional thoughts"
This is the common point expressed by the majority of participants with a learning style
of assimilating, converging and diverging.
4 Discussion and conclusions
This research aimed to identify how the learning styles of the pre-service
teachers influence their m-learning readiness along with their m-learning read-
iness within their learning styles according to various variables, including their
opinions towards m-learning. It was observed that the majority of the pre-
service teachers participating in the research were with the assimilating learning
style. This finding is also parallel to studies that reveal learning styles of pre-
service teachers in the relevant literature (Açışlı 2016; Can 2011; Gürsoy-
Dikmen and Saracaloğlu 2011; Güven and Kürüm 2008; Hasırcı 2006; Sülün
and Bahar 2009; Şenyuva 2017; Tuncer et al. 2018; Tümkaya 2011). Others, on
the other hand, had the diverging, converging and accommodating learning
styles respectively. There are also some studies finding the dominant learning
style as the diverging learning style in the literature (Bayrak et al. 2017;
Yavuzalp and Gürol 2017). This might be because the participants involved
in the present study enrolled in social disciplines as Aşkar and Akkoyunlu
(1993) indicated that the individuals who have the diverging learning style
involve in area of social work. Students with the assimilating learning style
consider teachers as the most important source of the information as well as
focusing on abstract concepts and ideas (Evin-Gencel 2007). In this context,
they prefer to receive information from teachers and other experts. As the tend
to learn by listening and watching, assimilator students appear to be successful
in traditional learning environments (Hein and Bundy 2000; Kolb 1984). Stu-
dents with the assimilating learning style are more likely to prefer structured
systematic knowledge and less successful in practical activities. In this regard,
the reason why whilst many students in Turkey are successful in the theoretical
aspect of the learning, they cannot perform similar achievements in the practical
aspect of learning can be explained in a way.
As a result of the analysis to identify how the learning styles of the pre-service
teachers influence their m-learning readiness, it was observed that there is a statistically
significant relationship between the learning styles of the pre-service teachers
and their m-learning readiness. This finding is consistent with some other
studies in the literature (Feng et al. 2015; Karimi 2016; Tortorella and Graf
2017). In this regard, this research provides contribution to m-learning adoption
related literature by presenting the learning style as an indicator. Therefore
considering learning styles of students in m-learning is important. It appears
that there is a higher level of significant relationship between the pre-service
teachers with the converging and accommodating learning styles and their m-
learning readiness comparing to others, even though their numbers are fewer in
the present research. This is in line with some studies in the literature (Tuncer
et al. 2018). This might be due to the fact that convergers seem to skilled in
practical application of ideas and accommodators seem to be doers and indi-
viduals with this learning style have features such as curiosity, flexibility and
open-mindedness. The results are different in some studies in the literature. For
instance, Dikmen and Tuncer (2017) report that individuals with the diverging
learning style have the higher attitudes towards m-learning and individuals with
the converging learning style have the lowest attitudes towards m-learning. This
might be due to the fact that the study group was structured by pedagogical
formation students. In addition, cultural varieties can play an important role within these
differences (Yağcı 2017). Besides, different learning styles may be influential depending
on the context of learning (Karimi 2016). The educational use of mobile devices can
only be achieved through a systematic, inclusive and holistic view (Sharples 2013).
Therefore, course content, teaching methods and techniques, teaching environment and
the individual characteristics of the students ought to be considered in the design and
implementation of m-learning materials.
To what extent latent and independent variables predict m-learning within the
learning styles and the relationships between these variables were examined by
structural equation modelling. According to the results revealed in the context
of each learning style in the developed model considering fit indices; it was
identified that there is a positive relationship between m-learning readiness of
pre-service teachers with the diverging, assimilating, converging and accommo-
dating learning styles and optimism, self-directed learning and self-efficacy sub-
dimensions. This is in line with interviews conducted to seek responses regard-
ing their opinions about m-learning. It can be said that the pre-service teachers
with the diverging learning style emphasize that one of the most important
complicating factors is insufficient infrastructure and financial barriers that also
emerge in the model. This is similarly reported in the literature that there are
some barriers such as technical infrastructure, high cost, etc., for effective and
efficient m-learning (Gündüz et al. 2011; Ergüney 2017). It was observed that
gender predictor has an moderate and negative effect on m-learning in the pre-
service teachers with the converging learning style. In this regard, it can be said
that gender has an positive effect in favour of males, unlike females with high
scores. This can explain in part the fact that the underlined complicating factor
is “personal inadequacies” emerged in the interviews. That is, it was underlined
that personal features are important in the use of mobile devices. This is
supported by the study of Baek et al. (2017). Unlike these findings, there
appear to be studies in which no significant relationship was observed between
m-learning and gender in the literature (Elcicek and Bahceci 2015; Yang 2012;
Sağır and Göksu 2013).
Mother educational background, which is one of the predictor variables of
the pre-service teachers with the accommodating learning style influences the
m-learning readiness of them moderately in the negative direction. Accordingly,
it can be said that there is a positive relationship between high level of
educational background of mothers and m-learning readiness considering the
number of participants whose mothers had only primary education. That is, the
high level of educational level of the family has a positive correlation with the
m-learning adoption. In addition, monthly income has a moderate and positive
effect on m-learning readiness of those with this learning style. The more
monthly income, the higher m-learning adoption or vice versa. This could be
related to purchasing power of mobile communication devices depending on
monthly income. This also emerges in the interviews with pre-service teachers
with the accommodating learning style. The study of Ağca and Bağcı (2013)
also reports that the financial status indirectly affects m-learning adoption.
Furthermore, it can be said that the frequency of internet use of the pre-
service teachers with this learning style has a moderate negative effect on their
m-learning readiness. This is closely similar the results of some studies reported
in the literature. Korucu and Bicer (2018) state that there is no statistically
significant difference between daily internet use of postgraduate students and
their m-learning. Even Molnar (2014) state that only 30% of university students
(undergraduate and postgraduate students) use the internet on their mobile
devices for learning purposes. It was reported that pre-service teachers use
mobile devices mostly for communication purpose. However, it also appears
that the pre-service teachers use for time planning and recording course con-
tents. I can be said that the use of technology in this direction makes a
significant contribution to the pre-service teachers in terms of using time better
and more efficiently (Gökdaş et al. 2014). In addition, another study indicates
that although students use mobile devices for many purposes, they do not take
the benefits mobile devices offer for meaningful learning experiences
(Dahlstrom et al. 2012).
The participants expressed the advantages of m-learning as being quick, easy and
practical in receiving information in general. This is in line with the results of some
studies reported in the literature (Çakıroğlu et al. 2017; Çubukçu et al. 2017; Meng and
Wang 2012; Teo and Ursavaş 2012; Viberg and Grönlund 2017). On the contrary, the
disadvantages were underlined as the ample information pollution and low information
reliability. The vast majority of the pre-service teachers participating in the research
expressed that m-learning facilitating factor is encouraging the application of m-
learning in education. This is in line with some studies in the literature (Ağca and
Bağcı 2013; Bayraktar 2014; Elçiçek and Bahçeci 2017). In contrast, they expressed
that personal inadequacies and insufficient infrastructure were the most complicating
factors for m-learning. In order for mobile devices to be used effectively in the teaching
and learning process, users are expected to accept or embrace educational mobile apps
adequately (Saban and Çelik 2018). Most of the pre-service teachers stated that they
would use mobile apps in their professional lives because of the advantages they have.
However, the insufficient infrastructure, which is one of the obstacles of technology
integration, also worries pre-service teachers.
What is interesting in research findings that attitudes and adoption of m-learning
may vary depending on different learning styles and various variables. In addition, it
study showed that variable interactions may vary within learning styles, which suggest
that it is not easy to cover all aspects of learner characteristics for m-learning adoption.
Therefore, it may not sufficient to consider individual differences only in designing m-
learning based environments. However, it can be suggested to consider learning styles
in designing m-learning based courses to increase attitudes and readiness of learners.
This study revealed the need for systems that can take into account individual differ-
ences and differences emerged with students’ interactions. Perhaps what is more
important is to design adaptable systems that monitor behaviors of students on the
m-learning based settings and identify changes that can be experienced during the
process (Tortorella and Graf 2017; Yavuzalp and Gürol 2017). Furtermore, the model
developed within the context of the study can be elaborated including other different
variables. For instance, revaling how proplematic internet use could effect m-learning
can indicate more detailed results. Also, it would be inevitable that including attitudes
towards digital technologies as a latent predictor within the m-learning and learning
styles could contribute to develop the model and emerge different perspectives.
5 Limitation and future studies
There are some limitations which may be subject to further research. The first one may
be the sample. Sample-related limitations could be the non-random sampling technique
of the participants and interviwee’s sample as well as the non-homogeneous nature of
the sample. Findings might be biased to gender and could not be generalized. Although
it was sufficient to represent the population in higher education, recruiting samples
from more universities and using random sampling approach can improve the
generalisability of the findings. The other limitation is that the overall results in the
proposed model may alter by integrating more variables. In addition, the present study
was framed by the KLSI- Version III, even there is an up-to-date version of KLSI 4.0,
which introduces even more comprehensive information for understanding and maxi-
mizing one’s learning style. The further study can be conducted considering this current
version.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
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.
Ergüney, M. (2017). The role of Mobile learning technologies in distance education. Ulakbilge, 5(13),
1009–1021.
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 experimen-
tal learning theory). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 120–139.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering
Education, 78, 674–681.
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.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hein, T. L., & Bundy, D. D. (2000). Teaching to students’ learning styles: Approaches that work. Frontiers in
education conference. In San Juan, Puerto Rico.
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.
Karimi, S. (2016). Do learners’ characteristics matter? An exploration of mobile-learning adoption in self-
directed learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 769–776.
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.
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.
Kolb, D.A. (1999). The kolb learning style inventory. Hay Resources Direct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: Research practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5),
5–11.
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.
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.
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.
Tümkaya, S. (2011). Fen bilimleri öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ve öğrenme stillerinin
incelenmesi (comparison of college science major students’ learning styles and critical thinking disposi-
tion). 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.
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..
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.
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.
Yang, S. (2012). Exploring college students' attitudes and self-efficacy of mobile learning. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 148–154.
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.
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.
Affiliations
Rıdvan Ata 1 & Mustafa Cevik 2

1
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
2
Karamanoglu Mehmet Bey University, Karaman, Turkey
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Exploring Relationships Betwee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Relationships Betwee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1351–1377

Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles

Rıdvan Ata 1 & Mustafa Cevik 2

Keywords Mobile learning . Kolb’s learning styles . Pre-service teachers . Structural

Fig. 1 Kolb’s learning styles (revised from Kolb 1999)

1.1 Research objective

1.2 Research focus

Accordingly, our research question are as follows:

Table 1 Descriptive information regarding participants

2.3 Instrument and procedures

2.3.1 Kolb’s learning styles inventory - version III (KLSI-III)

2.3.2 Mobile learning readiness scale (MLRS)

The scale developed by Lin et al. (2016) and adapted to Turkish by

Fig. 2 Learning style analysis grid

2.3.3 The interview form

A structured form (Yıldırım and Şimşek 2006) consisting of 4 open-ended questions

2.4 Data analysis

Fig. 3 Themes for the interview form

Table 2 Criterion values for fit

Table 3 Learning style distribu-

M-learning sub-dimensions Learning styles N X sd f p

Optimism Assimilating 126 35.26 349 4.75 .00*

a statistically significant difference for optimism, self-directed learning and self-

Fig. 4 The proposed path diagram for each learning style

Table 5 Regression coefficients

Table 6 Regression coefficients

Table 7 Regression coefficients

(.73) and self-directed learning (.70). In addition, the coefficient in predicting m-

Table 8 Regression coefficients

3.3 Qualitative findings regarding pre-service teachers’ opinions about m-learning

Learning style Themes Codes Frequency Percentage

Diverging 1. Advantages of m-learning Saving on time 15 16.30

Learning style Themes Codes Frequency Percentage

Assimilating 1. Advantages of Saving on time 34 26.98

"It allows us to learn more about a subject we do not know"

"The accuracy of the information is not certain"

Learning style Themes Codes Frequency Percentage

Converging 1. Advantages of Saving on time 18 24.65

"Teachers and students should be trained to encourage m-learning"

Learning style Themes Codes Frequency Percentage

Accommodating 1. Advantages of m-learning Saving on time 12 20.33

"Insufficient infrastructure, low connection speed"

"We can achieve a lot of knowledge anytime anywhere"

In contrast, 44 (34.92%) participants indicated that disinformation and lack of

"It allows us to access information more easily and quickly"

In contrast, 12 (20.33%) participants indicated that distractibility is the main disadvan-

"Attention can be shifted to different directions"

"Missing details and stuck in molds"

This expression of the pre-service teachers with accommodating learning style

“More promotion in their daily life and social media”

4 Discussion and conclusions

5 Limitation and future studies

Rıdvan Ata 1 & Mustafa Cevik 2

You might also like