SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Öğrenme Stili Tercihleri

Learning Style Preferences of Primary School Teachers

Raşit ÖZEN
Pages
95–106
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

T-test results indicated a significant difference in favor of female teachers only in visual learning style preference.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine the learning style preferences of primary school teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The subjects of this study were primary school teachers (n=250) working in the city center of Bolu in 2004.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:T-test results indicated a significant difference in favor of female teachers only in visual learning style preference.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the learning style preferences of primary school teachers. The subjects of this study were primary school teachers (n=250) working in the city center of Bolu in 2004. The quantitative data were collected by means of 2004 through Learning Style Preferences Inventory (LSPI) developed by Eren (2002). In addition to (LSPI), an open-ended question was asked to the primary school teachers during the study. To analyze the quantitative data collected, SPSS program was used and content analysis technique was used to analyze the open-ended question. Although, the analysis of the LSPI revealed that primary school teachers prefer the reflective learning style, the answers of open-ended question indicated that they prefer the active learning style. T-test results indicated a significant difference in favor of female teachers only in visual learning style preference.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı ilköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin öğrenme stili tercihlerinin incelenmesidir. Çalışmanın örneklemini 2004 yılında Bolu il merkezindeki ilköğretim okullarında çalışan ilköğretim okulu öğretmenleri (n=250) oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma sırasındaki nicel veriler 2004 yılında Eren (2002) tarafından geliştirilen Öğrenme Biçimi Tercihleri Envanteri (ÖBTE) ile toplanmıştır. Çalışma sırasında ÖBTE’ ye ilave olarak ilköğretim okulu öğretmenlerine açık uçlu bir soru sorulmuştur. Toplanan nicel verilerin analizi için SPSS programı ve açık uçlu sorunun analizi için içerik analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Ilköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin ÖBTE’ ye verdikleri cevapların analizi öğretmenlerin düşünsel öğrenme stilini tercih etmelerine karşın öğretmenlere sorulan açık uçlu sorunun analizi öğretmenlerin aktif öğrenme stilini tercih ettiklerini göstermiştir. T-testi sonuçları sadece görsel öğrenme stili tercihinde bayan öğretmenler lehine anlamlı bir farklılık olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZEN, R. (2022). İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Öğrenme Stili Tercihleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 95–106. https://ajindex.com/articles/426589

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Adams, D.M. (2000). Learning and teaching styles: collaborative action research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446053). Al-Balhan, E.M. (2007). Learning styles in relation to academic performance in middle school mathematics. DOMES Digest of Middle East Studies, 16 (1), 42–57.
  2. Arslan, B. and Babadoğan, C. (2005). Ilköğretim 7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme stillerinin akademik başarı düzeyi, cinsiyet ve yaş ile ilişkisi (Relationships between learning style preferences and gender, age and success level at 7th and 8th grade).Eğitim Araştırmaları (Eurasian Journal of Educational Research), (21), 35–48.
  3. Austin, Z.(2004). Learning styles of pharmacists: Impact on career decisions, practice patterns and teaching method preferences. Pharmacy Education, 4 (1), 13–22.
  4. Ball, I. (2000). Primary and secondary teachers – alike or different?. Australian Psychological Type Review, 2 (3), 13-14.
  5. Ballone, L.M. and Czerniak, C.M. (2001).Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6 (2).(December) Retrieved from http: // wolf web.unr.edu/ homepage /crowther /ejse/balloneetal. pdf. on 11.12.2007. Cassidy,S.(2004).Learning styles: An overview of theories, models and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444. Coffield,F., Moseley,D.,Hall, E. and Ecclestone,K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press Ltd. Retrieved from http:// www.lsda.org.uk / files / pdf/ 1543.pdf. on 11.12.2007.
  6. Çıngı, H.(1994).Örnekleme Kuramı (Sampling theory) (2.Baskı). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Basımevi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Yayınları Ders Kitapları Dizisi 20. DCU, Learning to learn. (2009). Reflective learning: Keeping a reflective learning journal. 1-7. Retrieved from http: // www. dcu.ie /ExL /pdfs/ Reflective learning. pdf on 16.02.2009.
  7. De Capua, A. and Wintergerst, A. (2005). Assessing and validating a learning style instrument.System, 33(1), 1-16. Deep and surface approaches to learning. Retrieved from www. engsc. ac.uk. /ac.uk /er /theory/ learning. asp. on 06.07.2005.
  8. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Joyce, E. and Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (3), 83 – 87. England, A. and Spence, J.(1999). Reflection: a guide to effective service learning linking learning with life. (ERIC Document