Research on learning technics of primary school teacher nominees

The objective of this research is to determine general learning styles of teacher nominees with versatile learning styles. 360 voluntary teacher nominees, receiving education at the 1rst class of the Primary School Department of Education Faculty, taking place within the structure of Fırat University, participated in the research.In the research, for the purpose of determination of learning styles of teacher nominees, ?Learning Styles Inventory?, which was developed in the year 1985, whose reliability was tested, and on which reliability study was conducted by my part by being translated into Turkish, as well as ?Survey on Personal Data? for determination of dependent variables with regard to demographic features of teacher nominees, were used.The data obtained at the end of the research were analyzed by use of statistical techniques appropriate for their characteristics, and SPSS 12.0 (Statistical Package for The Social Sciences) package programme in computer environment. In data analyses, frequency, percentage, chi square, MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance), one-way variance analysis (ANOVA), and two-way variance analysis were used.According to the findings obtained at the end of the research:1) It was determined that 66,8 % (n=231) of teacher nominees within the scope of the research had Separator learning style, 22,8 % (n=79) of them had Absorbent learning style, 5,5 % (n=19) of them had Transformer learning style; whereas 4,9% (n=17) had Establisher learning style.2) It was determined that in general there was not a significant relation with genders in terms of learning styles of teacher nominees within the scope of the research. However for science and technology teacher nominees (the 2nd education) gender variance is statistically significant and it turns out that girls learn by experience; whereas boys by observation and thinking. Furthermore it was determined that primary school mathematics teacher nominees (the 1rst education), who were girls, had transformer learning style (13,0 %). Thus they put their emotions and thoughts in the foreground. While primary school (the 2nd education) teacher nominees, who were girls, learnt by experience, and teacher nominees, who were boys, put their emotions and thoughts in the foreground.3) It was determined that there was not a significant relation with education departments in terms of learning styles of the students within the scope of the research.4) According to the findings obtained in the research; there was not a significant difference in general between learning styles of teacher nominees within the scope of the research and socio-cultural levels of families. However in science and technology teacher nominees (the 2nd education), there was a significant relation with the total monthly income of the family, which is one of the socio-cultural variables of family, and it was found out that families with monthly income rates of 500-1000 TL and 1000-2000 TL, had separator and absorbent learning styles respectively. Furthermore, there was a much more significant relation between learning styles of primary school mathematics teacher nominees (the 2nd education) and paternal profession; however there is not any relation between paternal professions.5) According to the findings obtained in the research, it was determined that in general there was not a significant relation between learning styles of teacher nominees within the scope of the research, and receiving education in state and private (high school) schools.6) According to the findings obtained in the research, it was determined that in general there was not a significant difference between learning styles of teacher nominees within the scope of the research and whether they receive pre-school education or not. However from the perspective of departments, in terms of teacher nominees, receiving education at science and technology (the 2nd education) and primary school mathematics teaching (the 1rt education), there is a significant difference. This means that in 26,6 % (n=92) of teacher nominees, participating in the research, difference was observed in learning styles despite the fact that they did not receive pre-school education. Thus, there is a significant difference between learning styles and training.