SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2006 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 141

Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ) Mühendislik Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stili Profillerine Yönelik Betimsel Bir Çalışma

A Descriptive Study of the Learning Style Profiles of the Engineering Students at the Middle East Technical University (METU)

Meral AKSU
Berna ARSLAN
Pages
83–91
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

The results showed that engineering students are active, sensing, visual and global learners rather than reflective, intuitive, verbal and sequential.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This descriptive study identified engineering students' learning styles and the differences in the learning styles according to sex and department.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The form was administered to 400 engineering students at METU.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that engineering students are active, sensing, visual and global learners rather than reflective, intuitive, verbal and sequential.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This descriptive study identified engineering students' learning styles and the differences in the learning styles according to sex and department. To determine the differences in the learning styles of engineering students, the Turkish version of the Index of Learning Style (ILS) developed by Felder-Solomon for engineering students was used. The form was administered to 400 engineering students at METU. The differences in learning style preferences according to sex and department factors were assessed via Chi-square tests. The results showed that engineering students are active, sensing, visual and global learners rather than reflective, intuitive, verbal and sequential. The Chi-square results did not indicate any significant results in all of the four learning style dimensions in terms of sex and department.

Özet

Tarama türündeki bu çalışmada mühendislik öğrencilerinin öğrenme stilleri ve cinsiyet ve bölümlerine göre öğrenme stillerindeki farklılık incelenmiştir. Mühendislik öğrencilerinin öğrenme stillerini belirlemek için Felder-Soloman tarafından mühendislik öğrencileri için geliştirilen Öğrenme Stilleri Index'i (ÖSI) Türkçe'ye uyarlanmış ve 400 ODTÜ mühendislik öğrencisi üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Öğrencilerin ÖSI'den elde ettikleri 4 öğrenme stilindeki tercihlerinin cinsiyet ve bölüm faktörlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını belirlemek için ki-kare testi uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, mühendislik öğrencilerinin genel olarak aktif, duyusal, görsel, bütünsel öğrenenler olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Yansıtıcı, sezgisel, sözel ve ardışık öğrenenlerin sayısının ise daha az olduğu görülmüştür. Ki kare sonuçlan 4 öğrenme stilinde de cinsiyet ve bölüm bakımından mühendislik öğrencileri arasında anlamlı bir fark olmadığını ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSU, M., ARSLAN, B. (2022). Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi (ODTÜ) Mühendislik Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stili Profillerine Yönelik Betimsel Bir Çalışma. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 141, 83–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/497951

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Brightman, H. J. (2004) GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles. Retrieved on 10.08.2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html
  2. Claxton, C.S. & Murrell P.H. (1987). Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Education Practices, ASHE-EPIC Higher Education Report No.4, Whashington,DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Cornett, C. (1983). What You Should Know About Learning and Teaching Styles. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation IN. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1981). Learning style inventory manual. Lawrence K.S.: Price Systems. Doyle W. & Rutherford, B. (1986). Classroom research on matching learning and teaching styles. Theory into Practice, 23(1), p.20-25.
  3. Felder, R.M., & Silverman,L.K (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(2),674-681.
  4. Felder, R.M., & Henriques, E.R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Languoge Annals 28, 21-31.
  5. Felder, R.M. (1996). Matters of style. Retrieved on 12.07.2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.2.nscu.edu/unity/lockers/users/ f/felder/public/Papers/LS-Prism.html. Felder, R.M., & Soloman, B.A. (1998). Index of learning styles. Online version of the questionnaire, available at North Carolina State University. Retrieved on 12.01.2002 from the World Wide Web:http://www2.ncsu.edu/unitvAockers/users/f/felder/pub1ic/ILS dir/lLS-a.htm Ginter, E. J., Brown, S., Scalise, J., & Ripley, W. (1989). Perceptual learning styles: Their link to academic performance, sex, age, and academicstanding. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 1091-1094.
  6. Haar, J., Haal, G., Schoepp, P., & Smith, D.H. (2002). How teachers teach to student with different learning styles. The Clearing House, Vol 75, 3, p. 142- 146. Habermas, J. (1974). Knowledge and human interest. London: Heinemann. Harrelson,G.L., Dunn, D.L., & Martin, M. (2003). Learning styles of athletic training educators. Learning styles of athletic training educators. Athletic Therapy Today, 8(4), pp. 62-64.
  7. Hativa, N. & Birenbaum, M. (2000). Who prefers what? Disciplinary differences in students' preferred approaches to teaching and learning styles. Reseach in Higher Education, Vol41, 2, p. 209- 236. Honigsfeld, A., Dunn.R. (2003). High school male and female learning style similarities and differences in diverse nations. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 195-206.
  8. Hunt, D.E. (1979). Learning style and student needs: An