Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEARNING STYLES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES

İlköğretim 2. Kademe Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stillerinin Demografik Özellikleriyle İlişkisi

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)

According to the results of the study; it was found that 37.4% of the secondary school students participating in the study have diverger, 24% of them have assimilator, 19.8% converger and 18.8% accomodator learning styles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the learning styles of secondary school students (6th.,7th and, 8th grades) and their demographic features. 1498 students (717 girls, 781 boys) from 12 secondary schools in Bolu in the 2005-2006 school year participated in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A“personal information inquiry” including 6 questions (name of the school, class, gender, education level of mother and father, income level) was applied in order to collect the demographic features of the students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the study; it was found that 37.4% of the secondary school students participating in the study have diverger, 24% of them have assimilator, 19.8% converger and 18.8% accomodator learning styles.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005-2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Öðrenme Stili · Demografik özellikler · ÖÐRENME STÝLLERÝ

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the learning styles of secondary school students (6th.,7th and, 8th grades) and their demographic features. 1498 students (717 girls, 781 boys) from 12 secondary schools in Bolu in the 2005-2006 school year participated in this study. A“personal information inquiry” including 6 questions (name of the school, class, gender, education level of mother and father, income level) was applied in order to collect the demographic features of the students. In addition, “Learning Styles Inventory” developed by Kolb in 1985 was used to determine their learning styles. The students’learning styles prefences were analyzed through frequency (f) and percentages (%). Students’learning styles preference were compared with gender, class level, education level of mother and father, family income level by using Chi-square Test. According to the results of the study; it was found that 37.4% of the secondary school students participating in the study have diverger, 24% of them have assimilator, 19.8% converger and 18.8% accomodator learning styles. There was a significant difference between the students’ learning styles and their mothers’ and fathers’ level of education or the level of income level the family (p<0.05). There was also a significant difference between students’learning styles and class levels and gender (p>0.05).

Özet

Bu araþtýrma, ilköðretim II. kademe (6. 7. ve 8. sýnýf) öðrencilerinin öðrenme sitillerinin demografik özellikleriyle iliþkisini belirlemek amacýyla yapýlmýþtýr. Araþtýrmaya 2005–2006 eðitim-öðretim yýlýnda Bolu Ýl Merkezinde bulunan 12 ilköðretim okulunda okuyan toplam 1498 (717 kýz, 781 erkek) öðrenci katýlmýþtýr. Araþtýrmada veri toplama aracý olarak 6 sorunun sorulduðu (Okul, Sýnýf, Cinsiyet, Annenin ve Babanýn eðitim durumu, Ailenin gelir düzeyi) kiþisel bilgi anketi ve öðrencilerin öðrenme stillerini belirlemek için Kolb’un (1985) geliþtirdiði “Öðrenme Stilleri Envanteri” kullanýlmýþtýr. Toplanan verilerin çözümlenmesinde, öðrenme stillerinin belirlenmesinde frekans (f) ve yüzde (%) daðýlýmlarý ve demografik özellikleriyle ilgili verilerin karþýlaþtýrýlmasý içinde Ki-Kare Testi kullanýlmýþtýr. Araþtýrmanýn sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre; araþtýrmaya katýlan ilköðretim II. kademedeki öðrencilerin %37,4’ünün deðiþtiren, %24’ünün özümseyen, %19,8’inin ayrýþtýran, %18,8’inin yerleþtiren öðrenme stiline sahip olduðu belirlenmiþtir. Çalýþmaya katýlan toplam öðrencilerin öðrenme stillerinin cinsiyetlerine ve sýnýf düzeylerine göre manidar düzeyde farklý olduðu belirlenmiþtir (p<0,05). Ayrýca, öðrencilerin öðrenme stillerinin annenin, babanýn eðitim durumlarýna ve ailenin gelir durumlarýna göre manidar düzeyde fark göstermediði belirlenmiþtir (p>0,05).

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, İ. P., MİRZEOĞLU, D., -, -. (2016). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEARNING STYLES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/966

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Akkoyunlu, B. (1995). “Bilgi Teknolojilerinin Okullarda Kullanýmý ve Öðretmenlerin Rolü”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eðitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayý:11, ss.105-109. Aþkar, P.& Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). “Kolb Öðrenme Stili Envanteri”, Eðitim ve Bilim, Sayý:87, ss.37-47.
  2. Arslan, B. & Babadoðan, C. (2005). “Ýlköðretim 7. ve 8. Sýnýf Öðrencilerinin Öðrenme Sitillerinin Akademik Baþarý Düzeyi, Cinsiyet ve Yaþ ile Ýliþkisi”, Eðitim Araþtýrmalarý Dergisi, Sayý:21, ss.35-48.
  3. Bahar, M. & Bilgin, Ý. (2002). “Öðretmen adaylarýnýn Öðrenme Stilleri ve Fen Bilgisi Dersine Karþý Tutumlarý Arasýndaki Ýliþki”, Abant Ýzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eðitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 ( 2), ss.53-67.
  4. Bahar, M. & Bilgin, Ý. (2003). “Öðrenme Stillerini Ýrdeleyen Bir Literatür Çalýþmasý”, Abant Ýzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1 (1), ss.41-70.
  5. Baran, A. (2000). “Üniversite Öðrencilerinin Çoklu Yetenek-Öðrenme Stilleri Ýle Benlik Saygýsý Ve Sürekli Kaygý Düzeyleri Arasýndaki Ýliþki”, Yayýmlanmamýþ Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ondokuz Mayýs Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Samsun. Barmeyer, C. I. (2004). “Learning Styles and Their Impact on Cross-Cultural Training: An International Comparison in France, Germany and Quebec,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations, No 28, ss.577–594. Bilgin, Ý. & Durmuþ, S. (2003). “Öðrenme Stilleri ile Öðrenci Baþarýsý Arasýndaki Ýliþki Üzerine Karþýlaþtýrmalý Bir Araþtýrma” Kuram ve Uygulamada Eðitim Bilimleri, 3 (2), ss.381-400. Buch,K. & Bartley, S. (2002). “Learning Style and Training Delivery Mode Preference,” Journal of Workplace Learning. No: 1, ss.5-10.
  6. Clark, D. R. (2000). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. Created May 29, 2000 Updated October 20, Clark 2000 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html#kolb 04.html.2007.
  7. Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2006). “Ýlköðretim Öðrencilerinin Fen ve Teknoloji ile Matematik Dersini Öðrenme Tercihleri” International Journal Environmental and Science Education, 1 (2), ss.172-180. Demirbaþ, Ö. O. (2001). “The Relation of Learning Styles and Performance Scores of the Students in Interior Architecture Education”. Yayýmlanmamýþ Doktora Tezi, Bilkent Üniversitesi Eðitim ve Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Demirbaþ, Ö. O. & Demirkan, H. (2003). “Focus on Architectural Design Process Through Learning Styles”, Desining Studies, cilt:24, sayý:5, ss:437-456.
  8. Erginer, E. (2002). “Öðrenme Tipleri Envanterinin Geliþtirilmesine Yönelik Model Araþtýrma”, Yayýmlanmamýþ Doktora Tezi, Abant Ýzzet Baysal Ü