Scientific Aptitude and Learning Styles among College Science Students of First Year Degree Course

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.1 SCIENTIFIC APTITUDE
I.2 LEARNING STYLE
I. 3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
I.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
I.5 DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS USED IN THE STUDY
I.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
I.7 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
I. 8 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
I.9 ORGANISATION OF THE RESEARCH REPORT

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
II. 1 STUDIES ON SCIENTIFIC APTITUDE
II.2 STUDIES ON LEARNING STYLES

CHAPTER III
PLAN AND PROCEDURE
III.1 POPULATION
III.2 SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE
III.3 SELECTION OF TOOLS
III.4 DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS EMPLOYED
III.5 ADMINISTRATION OF THE TOOLS
III.6 SCORING OF THE TOOLS

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
IV.1 SELECTION OF THE STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES
CORRELATION
IV.2 TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES (CR)
IV.3 COMPUTATION OF PEARSON’S PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION
IV.4 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

CHAPTER V
MAIN FINDINGS, EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
V.1 MAIN FINDINGS
V.2 EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
V.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
V.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

REFERENCES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the utmost aspirations of any country is to become a centre of excellence in education at the global level. Higher education is recognized as a vehicle for sustainable development and is realized as a powerful tool to build knowledge based society thereby taking the education system to towering heights. In India, the genesis of higher education in its present form goes back to the Nineteenth Century, its direction getting decided by Macaulay’s mercenary interests and later, to a more organic approach of 1854 by Sir Charles Woods Dispatch, linking school education with higher education . Setting up of the universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in 1857, followed by the University of Allahabad in 1887 was initially a big milestone which gave impetus to the growth of higher education in India. Indian higher education system has exhibited remarkable and palpable growth to become one of the world’s largest systems of higher education. Recently student enrollment has picked up speed from an approximate 16 million in 2009-10 to well over 26 million today and it is slated to hit 40 million by the year 2020. Inspite of sharp growth, quality remains a very serious concern in all educational institutions.

Since independence, the main focus of the higher education has been largely on issues of expansion, of access and equity and relatively less on quality and excellence. This is an era of globalization, modernization and liberalization and revolution of science and technology has glorified the modern world in a variety of ways. Science has became an integral part of our life and living. It is no longer confined to the eminent scientists. Rather knowledge of science for an individual has become almost indispensable irrespective of his/her status. It is also considered as a significant quality parameter of a school learner in particular. Sound achievement in science does not only build the pillars on which the future success of an individual depends, it also provides him a scope to contribute significantly for the progress of nation. This scientific revolution has transformed the modern civilization into a scientific civilization. One of the most important consequences of this technological shift is the need for systematic and continuous perfecting of one’s store of knowledge. The higher education has failed to keep a balance with the rapid scientific and technological development. Since the body of information is changing every moment, there is need for systematic renewal of the knowledge. Knowledge revolution will require a complete change in teaching learning process in schools. A clear introspection of Indian Educational System indicates that it is teacher centered and giving importance to teachers thereby relegating the student to background. This teacher centered education takes into the consideration the convenience of teachers thereby neglecting the interests, abilities and aptitudes of students.

Generally speaking, although teachers in school have three major tasks to accomplish, that is, to select and formulate achievable objectives, to plan effective learning experiences to attain objectives and to evaluate the extent to which the objectives have been achieved for the success of the school educational programme (Della-Piana, 1965), many a time most teachers fail to achieve their mission to enhance students’ achievements. The question is why? The psychology of human differences is fundamental to learning and it opposes a one-size-fits-all approach to education. Therefore, for a learning environment to be optimally effective, it should capitalize not only on contextual but also the learner’s characteristics. It is good practice to recognize and accommodate individual differences as well as to present information in a variety of ways through more than one modality. Educational institutions in order to capitalize the maximum intellectual resources of our youth; it is time for us to be the champion of individual differences. Educators seeking to effectively prepare qualified professionals must understand the differences in how their students learn, acknowledge their critical thinking aptitudes (Ferretti, Krueger, Gabel, & Curry, 2007) and then consider how best to optimize the learning process. Unfortunately, educators often overlook the impact of the learning process and teach as if differences between students do not exist (Paul, Bojanczyk, & Lanphear, 1994). Students, in response, often times feel dissatisfied with the learning process and often perceive instruction materials as lacking relevance (Eyal & Cohen, 2006). Consequently, performance often varies, from student to student and educators are left puzzled by these differences. Refusal to acknowledge differences in learning or critical thinking aptitudes does not allow for adjustments to the learning process. On the other hand, acknowledging the differences among students can promote deeper learning and improve the acquisition of knowledge (Johnson & Mighten, 2005).

Within the context of science education where there is an emphasis on developing higher cognitive skills such as critical thinking, professional judgment and problem solving, increase in the size of classes there is a risk that traditional lecture-style teaching, based on the assumption of ‘passive absorption’ of knowledge by students, will lead to fewer interactions between students and teacher . Science education is also multidimensional in nature and scientific courses demand that learners of science use multiple learning modes in different parts of the course, e.g. in classroom learning, laboratory sessions and fieldwork placements. Therefore, knowledge of students' learning style preferences and identification of their possible strengths and weaknesses will help educators to structure course content appropriately, thereby improving student learning and engagement in the education process. It will also improve students' self-awareness of how they learn best and what they can do to maximize learning opportunities. Once matching is developed between Scientific Aptitude and Learning Style Preferences, the learning of scientific subject becomes a playful activity. The child develops a genuine interest in scientific activities and nothing seems imposed on him as a result the probability of his success in future gets increased. In order to gain basic understanding of a scientific concept, different students will use different learning styles. Some may learn through touch, and some through direct participation in a scientific event. Moreover it is the nature of scientific event that determines the type of learning style adopted.

I.1 SCIENTIFIC APTITUDE

In the Dictionary of Education (Good, 1959), ‘aptitude’ is defined as “a pronounced innate Capacity for or ability in a given line of endeavor such as particular art, school subject or Vocation”. In this definition, an aptitude refers to an individual’s inborn potentialities or Capacities which are indicative of some special abilities. The word aptitude is derived from the word Aptos which means, fitted for. ‘Aptitude’ in Great Illustrated Dictionary (Rao, 1996) is considered as “a natural talent, skill or ability, quickness in learning and understanding”. In the above two definitions, it has been emphasized that an aptitude refers to the capacity of an individual to be skilled in some work receiving formal and informal training. Aptitude is used to predict future performance (Reeves, 2002), while achievement is a characteristic that is an indication of past instruction and experience that is planned changes in cognitive behavior (Haladyna, 2004) and ability is a measure of current competence.

Aptitude testing starts with students, high school or college, making choices about education that will affect the rest of their lives. Choosing a college or career simply based on what friends and family members have done or suggest can be a haphazard way of making such an important decision. What suits one person or an earlier generation may not work at all for someone else. We know that people are happier and more satisfied in their careers when they choose work that matches their aptitude pattern. Finding a career path that allows them to develop their natural abilities will allow them to express their fullest potential. Scientific aptitude is a complex of interacting hereditary and environmental determinants producing predisposition or ability in science. Through these abilities, it is possible to predict future accomplishment of a person in science.

Researches have shown that scientific aptitude depends upon a variety of significant determinant’s viz, presence of certain study skills and persistence in learning science, motivation, satisfaction derived from learning science subjects, socio-economic factors and cultural background of learners. Scientific aptitude is a potentiality of future accomplishment in science without regard to past training and experience. Scientific aptitude indicates the possibility of future success or failure in the area of science learning. An individual with right aptitude towards science develops better scientific aptitude. Without right aptitude towards a subject one cannot master or show any interest in a subject. Like-wise without good scientific aptitude an individual does not perform much in science. Therefore learners’ felt urge in learning science along with their sound scientific aptitude only may result in expected achievement (Ghosh, 1986). But unfortunately in the present education system at the time of admission in various fields of study in the higher education, student’s aptitude in that discipline is hardly recognized as the matter of consideration (DST). As a result, in spite of gradual increasing rate of enrolment of students in science courses, the scenario of students’ achievement in science is not as per the level of expectation. This failure in science learning increases the possibility of wastage of human resource and therefore has become a major concern of school teachers, administrators and also science educators (Ganguli & Vashistha, 1991; NAEP, 1979).

I.2 LEARNING STYLE

Learning style refers to an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing and retaining new information and skills (Reid, 1987). Learning-style theory begins with Carl Jung (1927), who noted major differences in the way people perceived (sensation versus intuition), the way they made decisions (logical thinking versus imaginative feelings), and how active or reflective they were while interacting (extroversion versus introversion).Therefore, learning style relates to the general tendency towards a particular learning approach displayed by an individual. Keefe (1979) defines learning style as the “composite of characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with and responds to the learning environment.” Stewart and Felicetti (1992) define learning styles as those “educational conditions under which a student is most likely to learn”. We can all benefit from a variety of learning experiences. However, there is clearly some true to the intuition that certain ways of approaching a task are more successful for one person than for another, and that when learners are given some freedom to choose their preferred ways of learning, they will do better than those who find themselves forced to learn in environments where a “learning style” does not suit them.

Knowledge of one’s learning styles can be used to increase self-awareness about their strengths and weaknesses as learners. Knowing students’ learning styles, we can organize classrooms to respond to their individual needs for quiet or sound, bright or soft illumination, warm or cool room temperatures, seating arrangements, mobility, or grouping preferences. We can recognize the patterns in which people tend to concentrate best - alone, with others, with certain types of teachers, or in a combination thereof. We become aware of the senses through which people remember difficult information most easily—by hearing, speaking, seeing, manipulating, writing or note taking, experiencing, or, again, a combination of these. Learning style also encompasses motivation, on-task persistence versus the need for multiple assignments simultaneously, the kind and amount of structure required, and conformity versus nonconformity. Merill (2000) argues that most of students are unaware of their learning styles. All the advantages claimed for met-cognition can be gained by encouraging learners to become knowledgeable about their own learning styles and that of others (coffield, 2004). Once students have brought this knowledge into their level of awareness, they are better suited to choose learning strategies that match their learning styles. This initiates student ownership of the educational process. One of the most significant issues in learning to learn is an individual’s taking the responsibility for his/her own learning. The individuals should know what their own learning styles are and what characteristics this style has and they should thereby behave according to this style. In this way, the individual can acquire the constantly changing and increasing amount of information without need for the assistance of others. When the learner takes the responsibility of his/her own learning, s/he attributes meaning to the process of learning.

I.2.1 LEARNING STYLE MODELS

Four learning style models that have been used effectively in the field of education:

I.2.1.1 THE MYERS- BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI)

This model classifies students according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. Students may be:

- Extroverts/ Introverts

- Extroverts : Try things out, focus on the outer world of people; and
- Introverts : Think things through, focus on the inner world of ideas.

- Sensors/ Intutiors

- Sensors: Practical, detail-oriented, focus on facts and procedures; and
- Intuitors: Imaginative, concept-oriented, focus on meanings and possibilities.

- Thinkers/ Feelers

- Thinkers: Skeptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules; and
- Feelers: Appreciative, tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations

- Judgers/ Perceivers

- Judgers: Set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data; and
- Perceivers: Adapt to changing circumstances, resist closure to obtain more data.

I.2.1.2 KOLB’S LEARNING STYLE MODEL

This model classifies students as having a preference for 1) concrete experience or abstract conceptualization (how they take information in), and 2) active experimentation or reflective observation (how they internalize information). The four types of learners along with the diagram are as under:

FIGURE A: KOLB’S LEARNING STYLE MODEL

Editorial note: This image was removed due to copyright issues.

Source: Research into Kolb Learning Styles 2011 - N M Slater /www.nwlink.com

- Type 1 (concrete/ reflective): A characteristic question of this learning type is "Why?" Type 1 learners respond well to explanations of how course material relates to their experience, their interests, and their future careers. To be effective with Type 1 students, the instructor should function as a motivator.
- Type 2 (abstract/ reflective): A characteristic question of this learning type is "What?" Type 2 learners respond to information presented in an organized, logical fashion and benefit if they have time for reflection. To be effective, the instructor should function as an expert.
- Type 3 (abstract/ active): A characteristic question of this learning type is "How?" Type 3 learners respond to having opportunities to work actively on well-defined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment that allows them to fail safely. To be effective, the instructor should function as a coach, providing guided practice and feedback.
- Type 4 (concrete/ active): A characteristic question of this learning type is "What if?" Type 4 learners like applying course material in new situations to solve real problems. To be effective, the instructor should stay out of the way, maximizing opportunities for the students to discover things for themselves.

I.2.1.3 FELDER-SILVERMAN LEARNING STYLE MODEL

This model classifies students as:

- Sensing learners (concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or intuitive learners (conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and meanings).
- Visual learners (prefer visual representations of presented material--pictures, diagrams, flow charts) or verbal learners (prefer written and spoken explanations).
- Inductive learners (prefer presentations that proceed from the specific to the general) or deductive learners (prefer presentations that go from the general to the specific).
- Active learners (learn by trying things out, working with others) or reflective learners (learn by thinking things through, working alone).
- Sequential learners (linear, orderly, learn in small incremental steps) or global learners (holistic, systems thinkers, learn in large leaps).

I.2.1.4 TYPES OF LEARNING STYLES AS PER LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY USED

1. Enactive Reproducing:- It indicates one’s preferences for action based concrete experiences. The emphasis is on imitation and practice. It is reproduction oriented.
2. Enactive Constructive: - It indicates preferences for conceptualizing one’s experiences based on the processing of enactive information.
3. Figural Reproducing: - It refers to one’s preferences for visual experiences related to making diagrams, charts, pictures, maps and photographs. The emphasis is on imitation and practice. It is reproduction oriented.
4. Figural Constructive: - It refers to preference for processing of figural experiences which will lead to conceptualizations.
5. Verbal Reproducing: - It refers to written or spoken information related to subject matter communicated through words.
6. Verbal Constructive: - It refers to the preferences for reflective accommodative and abstract thinking about subject matter so as to develop Conceptualizations.

The 1 and 2 can be clubbed to as Enactive learning style, 3 and 4 may be combined to mean Figural learning style and 5 and 6 can be combined to mean Verbal learning style, 1, 3 and 5 taken together mean Reproducing learning style while 2, 4 and 6 when combined refer to constructive learning style.

I. 3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This is the age of globalization, modernization and liberalization and revolution of science and technology has glorified the modern world in various ways. Science has became an integral part of our life and living. It is no longer confined to the eminent scientists. Rather, knowledge of science of an individual has become almost essential irrespective of his/her status. It is also considered as an important quality parameter of a school learner, in particular. In order to keep pace with the rapidly globalizing world there is need to develop and promote scientific aptitude among students. Within the context of science education where there is an emphasis on developing higher cognitive skills such as critical thinking, professional judgment and problem solving increase in the size of classes there is a risk that traditional lecture-style teaching, based on the assumption of ‘passive absorption’ of knowledge by students, will lead to fewer interactions between students and teacher than smaller group approaches. Science education is also multidimensional in nature and scientific courses demand that students use multiple learning modes in different parts of the course, e.g. in classroom learning, laboratory sessions and fieldwork placements. Therefore, knowledge of students' Learning style preferences, and identification of their possible strengths and weaknesses will help educators to structure course content appropriately, thereby improving student learning and engagement in the education process. Learning style is important for many reasons; however, there are three vital ones. First of all, people’s learning styles will vary because everyone is different from one another naturally. Secondly, it offers the opportunity to teach by using a wide range of methods in an effective way. Sticking to just one model unthinkingly will create a monotonous learning environment; as a result everyone will not enjoy the lesson. In other words, learning and teaching will be just words and not rooted in reality. Thirdly, we can manage many things in education and communication if we really recognize the groups we are called to. Of course, we may not know every detail; however, being aware of our students’ learning styles, psychological qualities and motivational differences will help us regulate our lessons appropriately and according to the conditions (Mc Carthy, 1982; Felder, Silverman, 1988; Coffield et al., 2004). Learning style has an important place in the lives of individuals. A person educated in an area having no relationship to his/her learning style may lack confidence and she/he may be less successful; s/he may as a result become frustrated. Knowledge of learning style also provides information to the student as to why she/he has learnt in a different way than others. It helps to control the process of learning. It is vital because one of the most important signals in learning is to learn to be autonomous, that is, for the individual to take responsibility for his/her own learning. Briefly, confidence in learning will consistently enhance when learners know how to learn.

I.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

On the basis of foregoing discussion and the significance of above said issue, the problem for the present study is stated as:

Scientific Aptitude and Learning Styles among College Science Students of First Year Degree Course

I.5 DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS USED IN THE STUDY

I. 5. 1 SCIENTIFIC APTITUDE

Scientific aptitude is a complex of interacting hereditary and environmental determinants producing predisposition or ability in science. The Scientific aptitude will be accessed on the basis of scores obtained by subjects on scientific aptitude Test for college students by A. K. P. Sinha and L. N. K.Sinha. This test measures the scientific aptitude of college students in seven areas 1) Experimental bent 2) Ability to reason and solve problems 3) Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions 4) Caution and thoroughness 5) Accuracy of interpretation 6) Accuracy of observation, and 7) Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided.

I. 5. 2 LEARNING STYLE

Learning style refers to the way one internally represents experiences and recalls or processes information. The learning style will be accessed on the basis of scores obtained by subjects on learning style inventory by K.S.Misra. This inventory attempts to measure six main learning styles namely-Enactive Reproducing, Enactive Constructive, Figural Reproducing, Figural Constructive, Verbal Reproducing and Verbal Constructive.

I. 5. 3 DEGREE COLLEGES

The colleges where 3- year degree courses are being run.

I. 5. 4 FIRST YEAR DEGREE COURSE

Students studying in Ist year of their graduation degree course and have opted science subjects.

I. 5. 5 SCIENCE STUDENTS

Students studying in Ist year of their graduation degree course and have opted science subjects.

I. 5. 6 RURAL-URBAN STUDENTS

For the present study Urban students are those who fall within Municipal limits and Rural students are those who fall beyond Municipal limits.

I.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The following objectives were proposed for the present study:

The following objectives were proposed for the present study:

1) To find gender differences in scientific aptitude among college science students of first year degree course.
2) To find gender differences in scientific aptitude among college science students of first year degree course with respect to the rural-urban dichotomy.
3) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course in their:

3.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

3.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

3.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

3.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

3.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

3.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

3.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

4) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas in their:

4.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

4.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

4.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

4.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

4.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

4.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

4.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

5) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas in their:

5.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

5.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

5.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

5.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

5.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

5.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

5.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

6) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course in their:

6.1 enactive learning style

6.2 figural learning style

6.3 verbal learning style

6.4 constructive learning style

6.5 reproducing learning style

7) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas in their:

7.1 enactive learning style

7.2 figural learning style

7.3 verbal learning style

7.4 constructive learning style

7.5 reproducing learning style

8) To find gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas in their:

8.1 enactive learning style

8.2 figural learning style

8.3 verbal learning style

8.4 constructive learning style

8.5 reproducing learning style

9) To find differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to high and low levels of scientific aptitude in their:

9.1 enactive learning style

9.2 figural learning style

9.3 verbal learning style

9.4 constructive learning style

9.5 reproducing learning style

10) To find relationship between scientific aptitude and learning styles among college science students of first year degree course with respect to the gender and rural urban dichotomy.

I.7 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

In the light of the objectives of the study the following hypotheses have been formulated:

H1) There will be no significant gender differences in scientific aptitude among college science students of first year degree course.

H2) There will be no significant gender differences in scientific aptitude among college science students of first year degree course with respect to rural- urban dichotomy.

H3) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course in their:

H3.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

H3.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

H3.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

H3.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

H3.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

H3.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

H3.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

H4) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas in their:

H4.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

H4.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

H4.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

H4.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

H4.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

H4.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

H4.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

H5) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas in their:

H5.1 scientific aptitude (Experimental bent)

H5.2 scientific aptitude (Detection of inconsistencies or illogical conclusions)

H5.3 scientific aptitude (Ability to deduce conclusions from the data provided)

H5.4 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of interpretation)

H5.5 scientific aptitude (Ability to reason and solve problems)

H5.6 scientific aptitude (Caution and thoroughness)

H5.7 scientific aptitude (Accuracy of observation)

H6) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course in their:

H6.1 enactive learning style

H6.2 figural learning style

H6.3 verbal learning style

H6.4 constructive learning style

H6.5 reproducing learning style

H7) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas in their:

H7.1 enactive learning style

H7.2 figural learning style

H7.3 verbal learning style

H7.4 constructive learning style

H7.5 reproducing learning style

H8) There will be no significant gender differences among college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas in their:

H8.1 enactive learning style

H8.2 figural learning style

H8.3 verbal learning style

H8.4 constructive learning style

H8.5 reproducing learning style

H9) There will be no significant differences among college science students of first degree year course belonging to high and low levels of scientific aptitude in their:

H9.1 enactive learning style

H9.2 figural learning style

H9.3 verbal learning style

H9.4 constructive learning style

H9.5 reproducing learning style

H10) There will be significant positive relationship between learning styles and scientific aptitude among:

H10.1 Female college science students of first year degree course

H10.2 Male college science students of first year degree course

H10.3 Female college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas

H10.4 Female college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas

H10.5 Male college science students of first year degree course belonging to rural areas

H10.6 Male college science students of first year degree course belonging to urban areas

I. 8 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The present study was delimited to only five Districts of Jammu Division namely Jammu, Samba, Kathua, Udhampur and Reasi. The study took only Male–Female and Rural –Urban factors into its consideration. Keeping the time and financial constraints into consideration, the study was based on a sample drawn from only eight Degree Colleges located in five Districts.

I.9 ORGANISATION OF THE RESEARCH REPORT

The report of this research work has been organized as:

T he First Chapter includes a brief discussion covering introduction of basic concepts, significance of the study, statement of the problem, operational definitions of the term used, hypotheses of the study and delimitations of the study.

The Second Chapter offers a theoretical foundation for the study where the results of the literature review consulted are summarized.

The Third Chapter deals with method and procedure, selection of the sample, selection of the tools, variables studied, administration of the different tools and scoring of the tools.

The Fourth Chapter deals with the description of statistical techniques, analysis and interpretation of data.

The Fifth Chapter deals with general conclusions, education implications limitations and suggestions for further research. The concluding chapter is followed by Summary, References and Appendices.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Review of related literature is a significant prerequisite to actual planning and then execution of any research work. A Literature Review is a written summary of journals, articles, books and other documents that describe the past and current state of information about the topic under study. Review of related literature documents the need for proposed study. Best (1963) is of opinion that a familiarity with the literature of any problem helps the students to discover what is already known, what others have attempted to find out ,what methods to attack have been promising disappointing and what problems remain to be solved.

Classification of sources of Literature Review Materials from summaries to Early Stage Material

Low standards to ensure quality

Early stage material

Papers posted in web site, professional association newsletters,

Drafts of papers for conference presentations

Indexed Publications

Conference papers, dissertations, theses, college and university publications

Journal Articles

Refereed, non- refereed, International, national, regional state

Books

Research studies, essays

Summaries

Encyclopedias, research reviews, handbooks, abstract

High standards to ensure quality

Source: Libutti and Blandy (1995)

Using this framework, the investigator started reviewing the literature by consulting summaries of research that synthesize numerous studies on the topic under consideration. From these broad summaries the investigator went through various journals, theses, dissertations, and finally to early stage materials.

[...]