8. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Stilleri ve TIMSS Matematik Başarıları Arasındaki İlişkinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme stilleri ile TIMSS matematik başarıları aralarındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir. Çalışmada nicel araştırma yöntemleri içerisinde yer alan ilişkisel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi, Bayburt merkezde 11 farklı orta okulda öğrenim gören 347’si erkek, 305’i kız olmak üzere 652 sekizinci sınıf öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada iki veri toplama aracı kullanılmıştır. İlk veri toplama aracı Reid (1987) tarafından geliştirilen ve Bengiç (2008) tarafından Türkçe’ ye çevrilen Algısal Öğrenme Stili Envanteridir. İkinci veri toplama aracı, açıklanan TIMSS 2011 matematik soruları arasından seçilen ve uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda oluşturulan 45 soruluk başarı testidir. Verilere SPSS programında frekans, yüzde, ortalama, standart sapma, ANOVA ve korelasyon analizleri uygulanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda öğrencilerin baskın olarak işitsel, ikinci sırada ise kinestetik öğrenme stiline sahip oldukları görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin genel TIMSS başarı puanları 11 ile 94 arasındadır ve ortalama TIMSS başarı puanı 43.38’dir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin sahip oldukları öğrenme stilleri ile TIMSS matematik başarıları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Öğrenme stilleri, matematik, TIMSS sınavı

Determination of the Relationship between 8th Grade Students Learning Styles and TIMSS Mathematics Achievement

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to determination of the relationship between learning styles and TIMSS mathematics achievements of eight grade students. Correlational research design that is one of the quantitative research methods, was used in this study. The sample of the research consists of 652 8th grade students 347 are male and 305 are female and the students continue their education in 11 different middle schools in the centre of Bayburt in Turkey. In the research, two data collection tools were used. The first tool is Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) that was developed by Reid [1] and translated by Bengiç [2] into Turkish. The second tool is 45-questions achievement test that selected from TIMSS 2011 mathematics questions according to experts’ opinions. Frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation, ANOVA and correlation analysis were applied through SPSS for data analysis. The most dominant learning style of the students is auditory and the second one is kinaesthetic learning style. Students' general TIMSS scores vary between 11 and 94 and the average TIMSS achievement score is 43.38. Additionally, it was seen that there is no significant relationship between TIMSS mathematics achievement and learning styles.

Keywords

• Learning styles, Mathematics, TIMSS exam

References

1. Abidin, M.J.Z., Rezaee, A.A., Abdullah, H. N. & Singh, K.K.B. (2011). Learning styles and overall academic achievement in a specific educational system. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 143-152.
2. Akgün, Ö.E., Küçük, Ş., Çukurbaşı, B. & Tonbuloğlu, İ. (2014). Validity and reliability study of the visual versus verbal style of processing scale Turkish form. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 3(1): 277-297.
3. Arslan, B. & Babadoğan, C. (2005). Relationships between learning style preferences and gender, age and success level at 7th and 8 th grade. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 21, 35-48.
4. Aşkar, P. & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb Öğrenme Stili Envanteri. Education and Science, 87, 37-47.
5. Ates, A. & Altun, E. (2008). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi öğrencilerinin öğrenme biçemleri ve öğrenme tercihleri. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 30, 1- 16.
6. Bengiç, G. (2008). The relationship between 6th and 7th grade primary school student’s learning styles and achievement in social studies course. Unpublished master thesis. Pamukkale University, Denizli.
7. Bouhlila, D.S. (2011). The quality of secondary education in the Middle East and North Africa: What can we learn from TIMSS’ results? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(3): 327-352.
8. Boydak, A. (2001). Öğrenme Stilleri. İstanbul: Beyaz Publishing.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakan, M., Tan, Ş. & Atar, H.Y. (2014). TIMSS 2011 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu: 8. sınıflar [TIMSS 2011 National math and science report: 8th grades]. AnkaraTurkey: T.C. Ministry of Education Directorate General for Innovation and Educational Technology.
10. Chen, T. H. (2006). Grade Level Differences in Preceptual Learning Style Preferences and Language Learning Strategies of Grade Seven to Grade Nine Students Learning English as a Foreign Language in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Idaho State University, Idaho.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
12. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles practical approaches for grades,7-12, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
13. Dunn, R., Beudury, J. & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Education Leadership, 50-57.
14. EARGED (2011). TIMSS 2011 Tanıtım Kitapçığı [TIMSS 2011 Prospectuses] http://egitek.meb.gov.tr/pdf/ TIMSS _ 2011_ kitapcigi. pdf. Accessed 17 December 2014.
15. Ekici, G. (2002). Gregorc style delineator. Education and Science, 27(123), 42-47.
16. Ergin, S. & Sarı, M. (2015). The research of the effect of student’ learning styles on their achievements according to the 4MAT (4 mode application techniques) and expository ınstruction methods. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(1), 178-203.
17. Fox, R.L. & Ronkowski, S.A. (1997). Learning styles of political science students. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30, 732–737.
18. Garland, D. & Martin, B.N. (2005). Do gender and learning style play a role in how online courses should be designed? Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(2), 67-81.
19. Gregorc, A.F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-237.
20. Gülbahar, Y. & Alper, A. (2014). Development of e-learning styles scale for electronic environments. Education & Science, 39(171), 421-435.
21. Güner, N., Sezer, R. & Akkuş-İspir, O. (2013). Turkish 8th grade mathematics teachers’ perspective on TIMSS. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 33 (1), 11-29.
22. Güven, M. (2004). The relationship between learning styles and learning strategies. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
23. Güven, M. & Kürüm, D. (2007). Teacher candidates’ learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Electronic Social Sciences Journal, 6(21), 60-90.
24. Given, B.K. (1996). Learning styles: A synthesized model. Journal of Accelerated Learning and Teaching, 21, 11-44.
25. Hanci, A. (2015). Investigation of 8th grade students' learning styles and TIMSS matematics achivements from the aspect of different variable: Bayburt sample. Unpublished master thesis. Bayburt University, Bayburt.
26. Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.
27. Jonassen, H.D. & Grobowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction (1st Ed.). Lawrance Erlbaum Associates: USA.
28. Kablan, Z. & Kaya, S. (2013). Science achievement in TIMSS cognitive domains based on learning styles. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 97-114.
29. Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
30. Kaleli-Yılmaz, G. & Hanci, A. (2016). Examination of the 8th grade students’ TIMSS mathematics success in terms of different variables. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(5), 674-695.
31. Koçak, M. (2008). The effect of problem based learning to attitudes, success and level of permanence of the students in secondary school geography lessons. Unpublished master’s thesis. Marmara University, İstanbul.
32. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiencies as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory (Revised edition). Boston, MA: Hay Group, Hay Resources Direct.
34. Küçük, A., Şengül, S. & Katrancı, Y. (2014). Views of prospective mathematics teachers about TIMSS: Case of Kocaeli University. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-36.
35. Landy, N. (2005). Effects of tactual and kinesthetic ınstructional resources on bermudian middle-school students’ vocabulary achievement and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral thesis. St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
36. Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. (1998). Numerical ecology (2nd Ed). Science BV Amsterdam, Elsevier,http://books.google.com/books?id=KBoHuoNRO5.MC&printsec=frontcover&hl =tr.
37. Ma, X., Jong, C. & Yuan, J. (2013). Exploring reasons for the East Asian success in PISA. In H Meyer &A Benavot (Eds.), PISA, power and policy: The emergence of global educational governance (pp.225-246). Oxford, United Kingdom: Symposium Books.
38. Ma, V.J. & Ma, X. (2014). A comparative analysis of the relationship between learning styles and mathematics performance. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(3).
39. Macnab, D. (2000). Raising standards in mathematics education: values, vision and TIMSS. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 61-80.
40. Magolda, M. B. B. (1989). Gender differences in cognitive development: An analysis of cognitive complexity and learning styles. Journal of College Student Development,30, 213- 20.
41. Matthews, D.B. (1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students. Clearing House, 69(4), 249-254.
42. McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4 MAT System: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington: Excel Inc.
43. Metin, M., Kaleli-Yılmaz, G., Birişçi, S. & Coşkun K. (2011). The investigating high school students’ learning styles with respect to different variables: A sample from Turkey. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3(4), 589-604.
44. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O. & Foy, P. (2008). (with Olson JF, Preuschoff C, Erberber E, Arora A, Galia J). TIMSS 2007 International mathematics report: Findings from ıea’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
45. Murray, R. M. (2004). An exploration of the kinesthetic learning modality and virtual reality in a web environment. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Brigham Young University, Utah.
46. Mutlu, A. & Aydoğdu, M. (2003). Fen bilgisi eğitiminde Kolb’ün yaşantısal öğrenme yaklaşımı. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 13(1), 15-29.
47. Numanoğlu, G. & Şen, B. (2007). Learning styles of university students attending department of computer and ınstructional technologies education, Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Educational Faculty Journal, 8(2), 129-148.
48. Otrar, M., Gülten, D.Ç. & Özkan, E. (2012). Developing a learning styles scale for primary school students (AOS-I). Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(2), 305-318.
49. Pang, P. (2009). Strategy for the development of a global city: Study abroad in Singapore. In
50. R. Lewin (Ed.), The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship (pp. 230-246). New York, NY: Routledge.
51. Peker, M. & Aydın, B. (2003). Anadolu ve fen liselerindeki öğrencilerin öğrenme stilleri. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 2(14), 167-172.
52. Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1), 87-111.
53. Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.
54. Riechmann, S.W. & Grasha, A.F. (1974). A Rational approach to developing and assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 87, 213-223.
55. Sarıtaş, E & Süral, S. (2010). Grasha-Reichmann learning and teaching style of the scale study Turkish adaptation. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 5(4), 2162-2177.
56. Tabanlıoğlu, S. (2003). The relationship between learning styles and language learning strategies of pre-intermediate EAP students. Unpublished master thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
57. Tatar, E. & Tatar, E. (2007). Öğrenme Stillerine Dayalı Öğretim, Journal of Qafqaz University, 20(13), 126-130. TIMSS 2011 Assesment (2013). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS&PIRLS international study center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.
58. Yenilmez, K. & Çakır, A. (2005). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin matematik öğrenme stilleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 44, 569-585.
59. Yılmaz-Soylu, M. & Akkoyunlu, B. (2009). The effect of learning styles on achievement in different learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational TechnologyTOJET, 8(4), 43-50.
60. Yücel, C., Karadağ, E. & Turan, S. (2013). TIMSS 2011 ulusal ön değerlendirme raporu [TIMSS 2011 national preliminary assesment report]. Eskişehir-Turkey: Eskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Education, Policy Analysis Report Series in Education I.
61. Zanini, N. & Benton, T. (2015). The importance of teaching styles and curriculum in mathematics: Analysis of TIMSS 2011. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Budapest, Hungary