SavedAdd your journal

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

LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

ÝLKÖÐRETÝM OKULU ÖÐRETMENLERÝNÝN ÖÐRENME STÝLÝ TERCÝHLERÝ

Raşit ÖZEN
Pages
—
Publication Date
2016-03-15
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:Öðrenme · Öðrenme stili tercihleri · Ýlköðretim

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 çalýþmanýn amacý ilköðretim okulu öðretmenlerinin öðrenme stili tercihlerinin incelenmesidir. Çalýþmanýn örneklemini 2004 yýlýnda Bolu il merkezindeki ilköðretim okullarýnda çalýþan ilköðretim okulu öðretmenleri (n=250) oluþturmaktadýr. Çalýþma sýrasýndaki nicel veriler 2004 yýlýnda Eren (2002) tarafýndan geliþtirilen Öðrenme Biçimi Tercihleri Envanteri (ÖBTE) ile toplanmýþtýr. Çalýþma sýrasýnda ÖBTE’ ye ilave olarak ilköðretim okulu öðretmenlerine açýk uçlu bir soru sorulmuþtur. Toplanan nicel verilerin analizi için SPSS programý ve açýk uçlu sorunun analizi için içerik analizi tekniði kullanýlmýþtýr. Ýlköðretim okulu öðretmenlerinin ÖBTE’ ye verdikleri cevaplarýn analizi öðretmenlerin düþünsel öðrenme stilini tercih etmelerine karþýn öðretmenlere sorulan açýk uçlu sorunun analizi öðretmenlerin aktif öðrenme stilini tercih ettiklerini göstermiþtir. T-testi sonuçlarý sadece görsel öðrenme stili tercihinde bayan öðretmenler lehine anlamlý bir farklýlýk olduðunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZEN, R. (2016). LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/940

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  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 Babadoðan, C. (2005). Ýlköðretim 7. ve 8. sýnýf öðrencilerinin öðrenme stillerinin akademik baþarý düzeyi, cinsiyet ve yaþ ile iliþkisi (Relationships between learning style preferences and gender, age and success level at 7th and 8th grade). Eðitim Araþtýrmalarý (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. Çýngý, H.(1994).Örnekleme Kuramý (Sampling theory) (2.Baský). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Basýmevi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Yayýnlarý Ders Kitaplarý 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 D