302 
 

Asian Journal of Education and Training 
Vol. 4, No. 4, 302-308, 2018 

ISSN(E) 2519-5387 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.522.2018.44.302.308 

    

 
 
Examination of the Effect of the Instructional Styles of Pre-Service Physical 
Education and Sports Teachers on the Ability of Self-Regulation 

 
Mehmet Behzat TURAN1


   

Kenan KOÇ2     
 

 
( Corresponding Author) 

 
1Erciyes University Physical Education and Sport Department, Kayseri/Turkey  

 
2Erciyes University Physical Education and Sport Department, Kayseri/Turkey 

 

 
Abstract 

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of pre-service physical education teachers' 
instructional styles on self-regulation skills. For this purpose, the sample of the research consists 
of 608 students who were randomly selected among the ones who 4th-grade students continue 
their education at Physical Education and Sports College in Erciyes, Omer Halisdemir, Aksaray, 
Dumlupinar, Gaziantep, Firat, Selcuk, Ahi Evran, Inonu, Erzincan and Haci Bektas Veli 
Universities. In the study, 2 scales were used as data collection tool. The first of these, 
Instructional Style Preference Scale (ISPS), was developed by Renzulli et al. (2002). The Self-
Regulation Skill Scale (SRSS) was developed by Arslan (2008) in order to determine the self-
regulation skill levels of pre-service teachers. In addition, personal information forms developed 
by the researcher were used in the study. Statistical analyzes of the data obtained from the 
Personal Information Form were made with the SPSS 22.0 package program. The personal 
information and inventory total scores and factor scores for the candidates were given by 
determining the frequency (f) and percentage (%) values. Pearson Moments Multiplication 
Correlation analysis (r) was used to show the relationship between scores obtained from the 

scales. Multiple regression analysis (β) was applied to determine whether the scores obtained were 
predictive of each other. A significant relationship was found between the discussion, which is 
among the instructional styles, cognitive regulation sub-dimension and the programmed 
instruction. It has been found that there is a high level of correlation between the effort regulation 
sub dimension and the straight narration between the instructional styles. In addition, there was a 
significant positive correlation between the subscale of the organization of the study and the 
literal expression between the instructional styles. When the results of the study were examined, 
it was thought that, generally, those who are aware of and make use of the learning styles have 
higher self-regulation skills than those who do not pay attention to the use of instructional style 
and are more successful in terms of academic achievements. 

 
Keywords: Instructional styles, Self-regulation, Physical education, Sport. 

 
Citation | Mehmet Behzat TURAN; Kenan KOÇ (2018). 
Examination of the Effect of the Instructional Styles of Pre-Service 
Physical Education and Sports Teachers on the Ability of Self-
Regulation. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 4(4): 302-308. 
History:  
Received: 29 March 2018 
Revised: 20 June 2018 
Accepted: 8 August 2018 
Published: 28 August 2018 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Contribution/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed to the conception 
and design of the study. 
Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 303 
2. Material and Method..................................................................................................................................................................... 303 
3. Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 304 
4. Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 306 
5. Suggestions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 307 
References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 307 
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 308 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.522.2018.44.302.308&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1451
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-803X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1459-2655
http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1451
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-803X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1459-2655
http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1451
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-803X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1459-2655
http://asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/EDU/article/view/1451
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5332-803X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1459-2655


Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

303 
 

 

1. Introduction 
In our era, it is important that the applied teaching methods are determined as taking and shaping the 

information with the participation of the learners, together with the learning and teaching of self-regulating skills. 
Therefore, learning environments in which one's learning process has the responsibility, decision-making and self-
regulation opportunities, forced the use of mental abilities and active participation are being developed (Açıkgöz, 
2003). The effect of the learners on the learning process has brought the concept of self-regulation into the agenda 
(Üredi and Üredi, 2007). 

It is thought that the concept of self-regulation is one of the most important components of success and 
academic performance. For this reason, this concept has been modeled and defined by a number of theoretical 
perspectives. Self-regulation according to Üredi and Üredi (2007) is "an effective and constructive process in which 
learners set their own learning goals, try to adjust their cognition, motivations, and behaviors, and are directed and 
limited by their purpose and contextual features in their environment". Kauffman (2004) defines the concept of self-
regulation as "an effort by learners to control and manage complex learning activities." Pajares (2008) describes 
this concept as "the supra-cognitive process that allows learners to understand and evaluate behaviors they exhibit, 
as well as to plan the alternative ways of success at the same time". Self-regulation draws attention to the role of 
individual control in human behavior and is primarily defined as the individual's control of his own behavior 
(Boeree, 2006). 

Based on the performed studies, it is thought that self-regulation is influenced by various variables. When 
examining the relationship between self-regulation and the school and the educational environment, it is possible 
to think that the teaching styles are also one of these variables. Boakerts (1999) suggested that the learning style 
that an individual possesses plays an important role in the formation of self-regulation skills. Accordingly, one of 
the three basic elements of self-regulation based learning is the findings from the studies on learning styles. 
Individuals learn in different ways. At the end of the learning-teaching process, the fact that positive development 
cannot be achieved in all students has started the process of concentrating on learning styles (Lukow, 2002). Rani 
(2012) defines the learning style as "the state of choosing a learning state or condition from other situations and 
circumstances". Rani explains that learning styles are included in the teaching, "if the learning is good in a class 
with a large number of learners, then the students are learning individually, in other words, they have discovered 
the learning style." Tulbure (2012) stated that a learning style-oriented teaching enhances the academic success of 
the students and that this type of teaching has positive effects on learning outcomes, attitudes towards the lesson, 
and learning motivations. Li and He (2016) argue that giving learners the opportunity to learn with their preferred 
learning style will make it easier for students to learn. They also add that learning styles increase academic 
achievement, increase motivation, make learning more effective and beneficial, that the teacher has more knowledge 
about the level of learning, and that it greatly reduces learning difficulties. 

The purpose of our study is to determine the extent to which pre-service physical education teachers in 
physical education and sports college are 'studying the effects of instructional styles on self-regulation skills' and, if 
so, how. When it comes to the literature, it is seen that studies on the subject are very few, especially in the field of 
physical education and sports. From this point of view, our work is thought to be contributing to the literature. 
 

2. Material and Method 
2.1. Study Group 

In the study, relational scanning method was used. The relational scanning style is a research model aimed at 
determining the presence and/or the degree of exchange between two or more variables (Karasar, 2009). 
Accordingly, in the research, it was examined whether there is a meaningful relationship between instructional 
style preferences and self-regulation skills and which style preferences predict self-regulation skills. 
 

2.2. Data Collection Tool 
In the study, during the implementation of the questionnaires, the explanations were made by the researchers, 

each of the pre-service teachers, within a wide range of time and without haste, and an attempt was made to create 
an evaluation process sufficient for the participants. In addition, favorable conditions have been provided for 
candidates to fill out forms in a comfortable environment. Data collection instruments used in the research were 
Instructional Style Preference Scale, Self-Regulation Skill Scale, and also the personal information forms developed 
by the researcher. 
 

2.3. Instructional Style Preference Scale 
The Instructional Style Preference Scale (ISPS) was developed by Renzulli et al. (2002) and adapted to Turkish 

by Öğretme (2001). The main purpose of the scale is to determine which teaching style students prefer to learn. 
The scale consists of 65 items and nine dimensions as the project, independent study, practice and memorization, 
discussion, direct teaching (straight narration), programmed teaching, simulated teaching, peer learning and 
teaching games. 
 

2.4. Self-Regulation Scale 
It was developed by Arslan (2008) in order to determine the self-regulation skill levels of pre-service teachers. 

The scale consists of one dimension and 20 items. The items in the measure are arranged as a 5-point scale as "I 
strongly agree", "I agree", "Undecided", "I do not agree", "I strongly disagree". 12 of the items in the scale are 
positive, and eight are negative. The highest total score of the scale is 100 and the lowest score is 20. In the study, 
negative questions were taken into consideration by inverse scoring. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency 
coefficient of the original scale was calculated as .87. 
 
 
 



Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

304 
 

 

2.5. Creation of Voluntary Groups 
The research will be conducted through the study group. The study group is composed of 4th-grade students 

who are studying in the Department of Physical Education and Sports College in Erciyes, Omer Halisdemir, 
Aksaray, Dumlupinar, Gaziantep, Firat, Selcuk, Ahi Evran, Inonu, Erzincan and Haci Bektas Veli Universities. 

A total of 645 students, who were selected randomly and studied in the department of physical education 
teaching, participated in the study. At least 5 people, and at most 10 people at each university were not included in 
the study group because they encoded the form and the inventory incompletely. As a result, the sample of the 
research consisted of 608 individuals in total. 

 
Table-1. Socio-demographic information of participants 

 Variables N % 

Gender 
Male 274 45.1 

Female 334 54.9 

 
Age 

18-20 12 2.00 
21-23 385 63.3 
24-26 124 20.4 

 Over 27 87 14.3 

Universities 

Erciyes 61 10,0 
Omer Halis Demir 59 9,7 
Aksaray 56 9,2 
Dumlupinar 54 8,9 
Gaziantep 51 8,4 
Firat 52 8,6 

Selcuk 60 9,9 
Ahi Evran 52 8,6 
Haci Bektas Veli 53 8,7 

Inonu 57 9,4 

Erzincan 53 8,7 

 
Weekly Class Work Duration 

1-10 380 62.5 

11-20 147 24.2 
21-30 52 8.6 
31+ 29 4.8 

 
General Academic Avarege 

1.50-2.25 57 9.4 
2.26-3.00 269 44.2 
3.01-3.50 236 38.8 

3.51-4.00 46 7.6 

                     

2.6. Socio-Demographic Information Form 
While creating the socio-demographic information form of the study, "Self-regulation and Learning Styles" 

and "Socio-demographic information forms" in the literature were examined and a pool composed of the 
characteristics to be examined in the students was created. Later, with the help of statistics experts, a socio-
demographic information form was created. This socio-demographic information form is composed of 5 questions 
in order to obtain participants' age, gender, weekly course duration, graduation status and general academic grade 
average information. 
 

2.7. Analysis of Data 
The data obtained from the "Instructional Styles and Self-Organizing Scale" with the Personal Information 

Form and the scores reached were entered into the SPSS 22.0 program pack and analyzed through this program. 
The personal information and inventory total scores and factor scores for the candidates were given by 
determining the frequency (f) and percentage (%) values. Multiple regression analysis was applied to determine 
whether Pearson Moments Multiplication Correlation analysis (r) and the scores obtained were predictive of each 

other and to reveal the relationship between the scores obtained from the scales (β). 
 

3. Findings 
 

Table-2. Descriptive statistics of students' responses to the questionnaire 

  N Minimum Maximum X±SD 

Self-regulations 

 
Cognitive regulation 
Regulation of effort 
Regulation of time and work 

 
608 
608 
608 

 
1,00 

1,00 
1,00 

 
5,00 
5,00 
5,00 

3.65±0.69 
3.39±0.79 
2.98±0.82 

Instructional Styles  

 
Project 
Independent study 
Practice and memorizing 
Discussion 
Direct teaching 
Programmed teaching 
Simulation 
Peer teaching 
Instructional games 

 
608 
608 
608 
608 
608 
608 
608 
608 
608 

 
1.67 
1.50 
1.75 
1.38 
1.71 
1.57 
1.17 
1.17 
1.00 

 
4.89 
4.88 
5.00 
5.00 
5.00 
5.00 
4.83 
5.00 
5.00 

 
3.57±0.60 
3.60±0.58 
3.52±058 
3.75±0.60 
3.85±0.64 
3.62±0.56 
3.41±0.62 
3.54±0.63 
3.25±0.73 

       



Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

305 
 

 

When Table 2 is examined, it was determined that the average of the Cognitive Regulation sub-dimension is 
3.65, the average of the Effort Regulation dimension is 3.39, and the average of the Time and Work Regulation 
dimension is 2.98. On the other hand, the average of the Project sub-dimension was 3.57, the average of the 
Independent Study was 3.60, the average of the Practice and Memorizing dimension was 3.52, the average of the 
Discussion feature was 3.75, the average of the Straight Narration style was 3.85, the average of the Programmed 
Teaching method was 3.62, the average of the simulation style was 3.41, the average of the Peer Teaching was 
3.54, and the average of the Instructional Games style was 3.25.  
 

Table-3. Correlation Coefficients between Students' Self-Regulation Skills and Instructional Styles 

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Cognitive thinking1 r 1            

p             

N 608            
Regulation of efforts2 r .284** 1           

p .000            

N 608 608           

Regulation of time and 
work3 

r .117** .412** 1          

p .004 .000           

N 608 608 608          

Project4 r .216** .227** .122 ** 1         

p .000 .000 .003          

N 608 608 608 608         

Independent study5 r .223** .235** .143 ** .587** 1        

p .000 .000 .000 .000         

N 608 608 608 608 608        

Practice memorizing 6 r .245** .174** .125 ** .668** .599** 1       

p .000 .000 .002 .000 .000        

N 608 608 608 608 608 608       

Discussion7 r .376** .206** .141 ** .623** .590** .647 ** 1      

p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000       

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608      

Direct teaching8 r .351** .324** .196 ** .547** .581** .575 ** .704 ** 1     

p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000      

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608     

Programmed teaching9 r .327** .224** .113 ** .598** .561** .575 ** .604 ** .623 ** 1    

p .000 .000 .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000     

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608    

Simulation10 r .172** .096    .040 .506** .391** .531 ** .437 ** .377 ** .583** 1   

p .000 .018 .319 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000    

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608   

Peer teaching11 r .296** .165** .057 .501** .370** .400 ** .497 ** .535 ** .497** .457** 1  

p .009 .000 .159 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000   

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608  

 
Instructional games12 

r .201** .097* -033 .557 ** .427** .494** .391 ** .343 ** .451 ** .540 ** .495** 1 

p .000 .017 .421 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000  

N 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 608 

   *p<o.o5,**p<0.001 

 
Table-4. Regression Table for Predicting the Instructional Styles of Students' Self-Regulation Skills 

Self-
regulation 

Instructional styles β t p R R² F P 

C
o

g
n

it
iv

e
 r

e
g

u
la

ti
o

n
     .431 .186 15.148 .000 

Project -.129 .2.217 .027     
Independent study -.053 -2.217 .310     
Practice and memorizing -.003 -.044 .965     
Discussion .263 4.384 .000     
Direct teaching .113 1.908 .057     
Programmed teaching .169 2.969 .003     
Simulation -.085 -1.672 .095     

Peer teaching .110 2.233 .026     

 Instructional games .070 4.384 .161     

Regulation of effort 

    .347 .121 9.120 .000 
Project .127 2.106 .036     

Independent study .080 1.469 .142     
Practice and memorizing -.058 -.949 .343     
Discussion -.090 -1.438 .151     
Direct teaching .312 5.072 .000     
Programmed teaching .047 .794 .428     
Simulation -.048 -.908 .364     

Peer teaching -.008 -.148 .883     
Instructional games -.043 -.823 .411     

R
e
g

u
la

ti
o

n
 

o
f 

ti
m

e
 a

n
d

 w
o

rk
 

    .243 .059 4.172 .000 
Project .079 1.260 .208     
Independent study .062 1.097 .273     

Practice and memorizing .035 .559 .576     
Discussion -.014 -.210 .833     
Direct teaching .180 2.825 .005     
Programmed teaching -.007 -.107 .915     
Simulation -.002 -.042 .967     

 Peer teaching -.025 -.470 .639     

 Instructional games -.160 -2.985 .003     
     F (9.598) 



Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

306 
 

 

When Table 3 is examined, it is observed that the cognitive regulation feature's relation with the project 
method (r =.216 p =.000) was significant in the positive direction, with the independent study (r =.223 p =.000) 
was significant in the positive direction, with practice and memorizing (r =.245 p =.000) was significant in the 
positive direction, with the discussion method (r =.376 p =.000) was significant in the positive direction, with direct 
teaching (r =.351 p =.000) was significant in the positive direction, with programmed teaching (r =.327 p =.000) 
was significant in the positive direction, with simulation (r =.172 p =.000) was significant in the positive direction, 
with peer teaching (r =.296 p =.000) was significant in the positive direction, and with instructional games (r =.201 
p =.000), was significant in the positive direction. Regulation of efforts' relation with the project method (r =.227 p 
=.000), with the independent study (r =.235 p =.000), with practice and memorizing (r =.174 p =.000), with the 
discussion method (r =.206 p =.000), with direct teaching (r =.324 p =.000), with programmed teaching (r =.224 p 
=.000) and peer teaching (r =.165 p =.000) was found to be significant in the positive direction. However, a low 
level of correlation was found between the regulation of efforts and instructional games (r =.097 p =.017) and 
simulation (r =.096 p =.018). The ability to regulate time and work's relation with the project method (r =.122 p 
=.003), the independent study (r =.143 p =.000), practice and memorizing (r =.125 p =.002), discussion method (r 
=.141 p =.000), direct teaching (r =.196 p =.000), and programmed teaching (r =.113 p =.005) was found to be 
significant in the positive direction. However, there were no significant correlations with peer teaching (r =.057 p 
=.159), instructional games (r = -.033 p =.421) and simulation (r =.040 p=.319). 

When Table 4 is examined, it can be observed that the model formed between cognitive regulation and 
instructional styles provides a significant relationship (R = .431 R2 = .186; p <.001). When the results of the t-test 
for the significance of the regression coefficient were examined, it was seen that discussion (t = 4.384 p = .000), 
programmed teaching (t = 2.969 p = .003) and cognitive regulation characteristics predicted the instructional 
styles characteristic and explained 18.6% of the total variance F (9.598) = 15.148 (p<.005). 

The model formed between regulation of efforts and instructional styles also provides a significant relationship 
(R = .347 R2 = .121; p <.001). When the results of the t-test on the significance of the regression coefficient were 
examined, it was seen that direct teaching (t = 5.072 p = .000) and regulation of efforts properties predicted the 
instructional styles characteristic and explained 12.1% of the total variance. F (9.598) = 9.120 (p<.005). 

The model formed between instructional styles and the regulation of time and work also provides a significant 
relationship (R = .243 R2 = .059; p <.001). When the t-test results for the significance of the regression coefficient 
were examined, it was seen that instructional games (t = -2.985 p = .003) and regulation of time and work 
characteristics predicted the instructional styles characteristic and explained 5.9% of the total variance F (9.598) = 
4.172 p<.005). 
 

4. Discussion and Conclusion 
In this study, a high level of positive correlation was found between cognitive regulation sub-dimension and 

instructional styles, discussion and programmed teaching. The use of instructional style predicted the variance of 
cognitive regulation sub-dimension as 18.6%. Sarıgöz (2013) defines the discussion method as providing students 
with the development of cognitive and affective areas by improving their ability to listen, think, inquire, criticize, 
synthesize and evaluate. According to Çubukçu et al. (2011) this method can be used to achieve goals in both 
affective and cognitive domains. According to Kaya and Kılıç (2008) "discussion is defined as a series of speeches 
made to explain the contradiction between two conflicting situations or an event made to reach reasonable, rational 
decisions". In the study conducted by Yazıcı (2003) it was found that after using the discussion method in primary 
education, there was an improvement in the subjects such as equality, openness, respect for the opinions, 
participation, resorting to the vote of the class, being scientific and willingness to discuss. In another study, Can 
(2005) found that the six thinking hats technique, which is another discussion method, positively affected student 
achievement in primary school social studies class. In Kısa (2007) he determined that the use of the brainstorming 
technique, another discussion method, was more effective than the method of narration in the teaching of concepts 
in the sixth-grade social studies course. On the other hand, in the teaching technology course, Anyasi et al. (2008) 
found that the programmed teaching method affected the academic achievement of the students. Uz (2009) found 
that programmed teaching method and cooperative learning method affect students' attitudes towards their 
academic achievements in the teaching of "Mixtures" in Science and Technology class. As noted in the literature, 
both discussion and programmed teaching methods are thought to be predictive of the cognitive regulation sub-
dimension since they are methods that address the cognitive domain and are characterized by the regulation and 
systematization of learning. 

Regulation of efforts sub-dimension and direct teaching, which is one of the instructional styles, has been found 
to be highly positively related. The use of instructional style predicts the variance of the regulation of efforts sub-
dimension by 12.1%. It is helpful to use the method of narration when the time is limited, in describing the most 
important part of the subject, in explaining how to do the activities and in summarizing the information at the end 
of teaching and when it is necessary to tell the subject to a large group. In addition, this method also contributes to 
the students' being a good listener (Ünalan, 2001). In the method of narration that Ausubel suggested, the teaching 
is based on the approach, in which the information is presented to the students. Teaching through presentation is 
the process of giving information in a carefully arranged, sequenced and ready-to-receive form. In this way, it is 
taught that the general principles and concepts are given first and that detailed information is gained. When we 
look at the nature of the regulation of efforts sub-dimension, Chen (2002) pointed out that "the student intends to 
concentrate his attention on the job when he/she fulfills a task in the academic environment and wants to control 
the effort without being influenced by external stimuli." From this point on, the regular presentation of systematic 
information is considered to be a method for a student having a high level of regulation of efforts characteristic. 

There is a significant positive relationship between the regulation of time and work sub-dimension and direct 
teaching, which is one of the instructional styles. The use of instructional style predicts the variance of the 
regulation of time and work sub-dimension by 5.9%. Time management strategy is the process of planning and 
adapting to the plan to use time effectively. Zimmerman et al. (1992) found in their studies that the academic 



Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

307 
 

 

achievement levels of those who use this strategy are higher. On the other hand, the arrangement of the working 
environment is the way the student prepares the learning environment in a comfortable way before starting work. 

According to Açikgöz (1998) in the direct teaching method, the speaker's organizing the information and 
planning in advance should not go out of the subject. He/she should be clear and understandable and have a tone in 
a way that attracts the attention of the listener. During the lecture, he/she should motivate the student using 
audiovisual tools, clues, questions and jokes. The presentation should be planned in the form of introduction, body 
and conclusion. Based on this information, it is thought that it would be normal for a person, who wants to use time 
and working environment, to prefer to use a planned presentation and work style by choosing the method of 
presentation.  

When the results of the study are examined in general terms, it is considered that those who are aware of and 
use the learning styles have high self-regulation skills and are more successful in their academic achievements than 
those who do not pay attention to the instructional styles, so that teachers should know the instructional styles and 
use them according to the group and guide the students accordingly regarding the subject, and this will increase 
the quality of education. 
 

5. Suggestions 
 Style-focused course designs can be created in order to help learners better understand and improve 

their self-regulation by identifying their instructional style. 

 Teachers' guidance to the students can be provided by giving them teachers' training on instructional 
style and self-regulation. 

 Teaching environments can be improved in terms of technology and infrastructure for style selection 
and self-definition can be increased. 

 Introductory work can be done and parents can be involved in raising support and awareness within 
the family. 

 Not only in school but also in lifelong learning, awareness raising activities can be carried out in 
various non-formal education courses. 

 

References 
Açikgöz, K., 1998. Effective learning and teaching. 2nd Edn., İzmir: Kanyılmaz Press. 
Açıkgöz, K.Ü., 2003. Active learning. Izmir: World Publications. pp: 23-25. 
Anyasi, F.I., P.A. Otubu and F.E. Iserameiya, 2008. The merging of telecommunication and information processing: The technological 

undertiming. Journal of Mobile Communication, 2(3): 89-92. View at Google Scholar   
Arslan, A., 2008. Effect of collaborative learning on accessibility, retention, self-efficacy belief and self-regulation skills. Unpublished 

Doctoral Thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara. 
Boakerts, M., 1999. Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6): 445-457. View at Google 

Scholar | View at Publisher 
Boeree, G.C., 2006. Personality theories. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html [Accessed 26.03.2016]. 
Can, A.H., 2005. The impact of using the six hat thinking technique on students' achievements in sixth grade social studies class. 

Unpublished Master's Thesis, Fırat University Social Sciences Institute, Elazığ. 
Chen, C.S., 2002. Self-regulated learning strategies and achievement in an introduction to information systems course. Information 

Tecnology, Learning and Performance Journal, 20(1): 11-25. View at Google Scholar   

Çubukçu, Z., M. Taşdemir, M. Güven, C. Babadoğan, A. Oğuz and B. Aybek, 2011. Teaching principles and methods. (Ed. Bilal Duman). 
Ankara: Anı Publishing. 

Karasar, N., 2009. Scientific research methodology. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. pp: 34-36. 
Kauffman, D.F., 2004. Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, 

metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1-2): 139-161. View at Google 

Scholar | View at Publisher 
Kaya, O.N. and Z. Kılıç, 2008. A discussionist lecture for effective science teaching. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty 

Journal, 9(3): 89-100.  
Kısa, F., 2007. The impact of using brainstorming technique in teaching concepts on the academic achievemtns of students in primary school 

6th grade social studies class. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara. 
Li, H. and Q. He, 2016. Ambiguity tolerance and perceptual learning styles of Chinese efl learners. English Language Teaching, 9(6): 213-

222. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 
Lukow, J.E., 2002. Learning style as predictors of student attitudes toward the use of technology in recreation courses. Doctoral Thesis. 

Indiana University, ABD. 

Öğretme, M., 2001. The effect of differentiated physics instruction on 9th grade gifted learners. Unpublished Master Thesis, Boğaziçi 
University / Institute of Science. 

Pajares, F., 2008. Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation 
and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp: 111-139. 

Rani, P., 2012. Learning styles in education. International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences, 2(5): 31-41.  
Renzulli, J.S., M.G. Rizza and L.H. Smith, 2002. Learning styles inventory-version III: A measure of student preferences for instructional 

techniques. Technical and administration manual. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press. 
Sarıgöz, O., 2013. The impact of classroom and group discussion methods on academic achievements of vocational college students. 

Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 3(3): 100-106.  
Tulbure, C., 2012. Learning styles, teaching strategies and academic achievement in higher education: A cross-sectional investigation. 

Prodedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33: 398-402. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

Ünalan, Ş., 2001. Teaching Turkish. 2nd Edn., Ankara: Nobel Publication Distribution. 
Üredi, I. and L. Üredi, 2007. Establishing a learning environment that enhances students' self-regulated learning skills. Edu, 7(2): 1-29.  
Uz, Ö., 2009. The effect of programmed teaching and the collaborative learning approach on academic achievement and science attitude of 

7th grade students. Master's Thesis, Sakarya University. 
Yazıcı, K., 2003. The impact of using discussion method on the democratic attitudes of students in primary school 6th grade social studies 

class. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara. 
Zimmerman, B.J., A. Bandura and M. Martinezpons, 1992. Self-motivation for academic attainment - the role of self-efficacy beliefs and 

personal goal-setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3): 663-676. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher 

 
 
 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=The%20merging%20of%20telecommunication%20and%20information%20processing:%20The%20technological%20undertiming
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-regulated%20learning:%20Where%20we%20are%20today
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-regulated%20learning:%20Where%20we%20are%20today
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(99)00014-2
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/bandura.html
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-regulated%20learning%20strategies%20and%20achievement%20in%20an%20introduction%20to%20information%20systems%20course
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-regulated%20learning%20in%20web-based%20environments:%20Instructional%20tools%20designed%20to%20facilitate%20cognitive%20strategy%20use,%20metacognitive%20processing,%20and%20motivational%20beliefs
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-regulated%20learning%20in%20web-based%20environments:%20Instructional%20tools%20designed%20to%20facilitate%20cognitive%20strategy%20use,%20metacognitive%20processing,%20and%20motivational%20beliefs
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ax2d-y9vm-v7px-0tad
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Ambiguity%20tolerance%20and%20perceptual%20learning%20styles%20of%20Chinese%20efl%20learners
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p213
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Learning%20styles,%20teaching%20strategies%20and%20academic%20achievement%20in%20higher%20education:%20A%20cross-sectional%20investigation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.151
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Self-motivation%20for%20academic%20attainment%20-%20the%20role%20of%20self-efficacy%20beliefs%20and%20personal%20goal-setting
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663


Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2018, 4(4): 302-308 

308 
 

 

Bibliography  
Newman, R.S., 1994. Academic help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-

regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. İçinde, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 
pp: 283–304. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article.