The relationship between pre-service science teachers’ cognitive styles and their cognitive structures about technology

References

• Alamolhodaei, H. 1996. “A Study in Higher Education Calculus and Students’ Learning Styles.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Naeme, F. F. A. 1991. “The Influence of Various Learning Styles on Practical Problem-solving ın Chemistry in Scottish Secondary Schools.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Ateş, S., and E. Çataloğlu. 2007. “The Effects of Students’ Cognitive Styles on Conceptual Understandings and Problem-solving Skills in Introductory Mechanics.” Research in Science & Technological Education 25 (2): 167–178.
   Google Scholar
• Aydın, F. 2009. Teknolojinin Doğasına Yönelik Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşlerinin Ve Kavramlarının Gelişimi Ve Öğretimde İkilemlerin Etkililiği [Development of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Views and Concepts about Nature of Technology and Effectiveness of Dilemmas in Teaching]. Ankara: Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi.
   Google Scholar
• Aydın, F., and F. Taşar. 2010. “An Investigation of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Cognitive Structures and Ideas about the Nature of Technology.” Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 11 (4): 209–221.
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, M. 1999. “Investigation of Biology Students’ Cognitive Structure through Word Association Tests, Mind Maps and Structural Communication Grids.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, M. 2003. “The Effect of Instructional Methods on the Performance of the Students Having Different Cognitive Styles.” Hacettepe University Journal of Education 24: 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, M., and H. M. Hansell. 2000. “The Relationship between Some Psychological Factors and Their Effect on the Performance of Grid Questions and Word Association Tests.” Educational Psychology 20 (3): 349–364.10.1080/713663739
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, M., A. H. Johnstone, and R. Sutcliffe. 1999. “Investigation of Students” Cognitive Structure in Elementary Genetics through Word Association Tests.” Journal of Biological Education 33: 134–141.10.1080/00219266.1999.9655653
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahar, M., and N. S. Özatlı. 2003. “Kelime İletişim Test Yöntemi Ile Lise 1. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Canlilarin Temel Bileşenleri Konusundaki Bilişsel Yapilarinin Araştirilmasi [Diagnosing the Cognitive Structure of High School Pupils at Level One Regarding the Topic “The Basic Components of Living Things” by Using Word Association Test].” Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 5 (2): 75–85.
   Google Scholar
• Bahar, M., and E. Tongaç. 2009. “The Effect of Teaching Approaches on the Pattern of Pupils’ Cognitive Structures: Some Evidence from the Field.” The Asia Pacific Education Researcher 18 (1): 21–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, A. S. 2002. “The Relationship among Teachers Who Are Field Dependent or Field Independent in an Online Course on Their Perceptions of Computer Self – Efficacy, Computer Anxiety, and Computer Usefulness.” PhD diss., University of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Blanton, E. L. 2004. “The Influence of Students’ Cognitive Style on a Standardized Reading Test Administered in Three Different Formats.” PhD diss., University of Central Florida Orlando.
   Google Scholar
• Britton, E., B. D. Long-Cotty, and T. Levenson. 2005. Bringing Technology Education into K-8 Classrooms: A Guide to Curricular Resources about the Designed World. CA: Corwin Press. A Sage Publications Company.
   Google Scholar
• Bugliarello, G. 2000. “Reflections on Technological Literacy.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 20 (2): 83–89.
   Google Scholar
• Cardellini, L., and M. Bahar. 2000. “Monitoring the Learning of Chemistry through Word Association Tests.” Australian Chemistry Resource Book 19: 59–69.
   Google Scholar
• Case, R. 1974. “Structures and Strictures, Some Functional Limitations on the Course of Cognitive Growth.” Cognitive Psychology 6: 544–574.10.1016/0010-0285(74)90025-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, LSDA.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., M. Lawrence, and K. Morrison. 2006. Research Methods in Education. London and New York: Routlede Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Coronges, K. A., A. W. Stacy, and T. W. Valente. 2007. “Structural Comparison of Cognitive Associative Networks in Two Populations.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (9): 2097–2129.10.1111/jasp.2007.37.issue-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, K. L. 1976. Accent on Learning. New York: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Danili, E., and N. Reid. 2006. “Cognitive Factors That Can Potentially Affect Pupils’ Test Performance.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 7 (2): 64–83.10.1039/b5rp90016f
   Google Scholar
• Deese, J. 1965. The Structure of Association in Language and Thought. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dorf, R. C. 2001. Technology, Humans, and Society. Academic Press, San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Dugger, W., and N. Naik. 2001. “Clarifying Misconceptions between Technology Education and Educational Technology.” The Technology Teacher 61 (1): 31–35.
   Google Scholar
• Erdoğan, T., and B. Gök. 2008. “Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Teknoloji Kavramına İlişkin Algılarının Metafor Analizi Yoluyla Incelenmesi [Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions about Concept of Technology through Metaphor Analysis].” In Proceedings of 8th International Educational Technology Conference, Eskişehir, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, C., and M. Waring. 2007. “Using the CSI in Educational Settings.” In Laering Og Laeringsstile Om Unikke Og Faelles Veje I Paedagogikken, edited by L. M. Lassen, L. Bostrum and H. H. HenrikKnoop, 103–122. Denmark: Dansk Psykolgisk Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Fang, R., C. Teng, and C. Chen. 2007. “How Taiwanese and Americans Think about Technology.” Journal of Technology Education 18 (2): 7–23.
   Google Scholar
• Gilberti, A. F. 1999. “Why Technology Should Be Integrated into the Curriculum as a Core Subject.” NASSP Bulletin 83 (608): 56–63.
   Google Scholar
• Hovardas, T., and J. K. Korfiatis. 2006. “Word Associations as a Tool for Assessing Conceptual Change in Science Education.” Learning and Instruction 16: 416–432.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Technology Education Association (ITEA). 2003. Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• International Technology Education Association and Technology for All Americans (ITEA). 2000. Standard for Technological Literacy. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, T., and L. Rennie. 1998. “Factors That Influence Children’s Developing Perceptions of Technology.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8: 261–279.10.1023/A:1008826320260
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, H. D., and L. B. Grabowski. 1993. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. 2002. “Research in Learning Technological Concepts and Process.” In Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary School, edited by G. Owen-Jackson, 79–91. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A., and M. Carr. 1993. Towards Technology Education. Working Papers of the Learning in Technology Project. Centre for Science & Mathematics Education Research University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. T., V. Mather, and M. D. Carr. 1995. Issues in the Practice of Technology Education. Centre for Science & Mathematics Education Research University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Karadeniz, Ş. 2012. “School Administrators, ICT Coordinators and Teachers’ Metaphorical Conceptualizations of Technology.” Education 2 (5): 101–111.10.5923/j.edu.20120205.01
   Google Scholar
• Kempa, R. F., and C. E. Nicholls. 1983. “Problem Solving Ability and Cognitive Structure – An Explanatory Investigation.” European Journal of Science Education 5: 171–184.10.1080/0140528830050205
   Google Scholar
• Kiewra, K. A., and B. M. Frank. 1986. “Encoding and External-storage Effects of Personal Lecture Notes, Skeletal Notes, and Detailed Notes for Field-independent and Field-dependent Learners.” Journal of Educational Researches 81 (3): 143–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt, A. A., and Ö. ve Özer. 2013. “Metaphorical Perceptions of Technology: Case of Anadolu University Teacher Training Certification Program.” Eğitimde Kuram Ve Uygulama 9 (2): 94–112.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. 1984. “The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice.” Educational Psychologist 19 (2): 59–74.10.1080/00461528409529283
   Google Scholar
• Nielson, T. 2008. “Implementation of Learning Styles at the Teacher Level.” Education and Training 50 (2): 167–182.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, E., and D. Lim. 2005. “Cross Relationships between Cognitive Styles and Learner Variables in Online Learning Environment.” Journal of Interactive Online Learning 4 (1): 53–66.
   Google Scholar
• Pavlova, M. 2006. “Comparing Perspectives: Comperative Research in Technology Education”. In International Handbook of Technology Education: Reviewing the past Twenty Years, edited by M. de Vries & I. Mottier, 19–32. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, G. J., K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog. 1982. “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” Science & Education 66 (2): 211–227.
   Google Scholar
• Riding, R., and I. Cheema. 1991. “Cognitive Style – An Overview and Integration.” Educational Psychology 11 (3–4): 193–215.10.1080/0144341910110301
   Google Scholar
• Rose, L., and W Dugger. 2003. “What Americans Think about Technology.” Accessed October 14. http://www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/Gallupreport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Saracko, O. N. 1997. Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitive Style in Early Childhood Education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
   Google Scholar
• Scardamalia, M. 1977. “Information Processing Capacity and the Problem of Horizontal Decalage: A Demonstration Using Combinatorial Reasoning Tasks.” Child Development 48: 28–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J. 1972. “Some Aspects of the Relationship between Content Structure and Cognitive Structure in Physics Instructions.” Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 225–234.10.1037/h0032652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J. 1974. “Methods for Examining Representations of a Subject-matter Structure in a Student’s Memory.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11: 231–249.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. R. 1980. “The Learner’s Prior Knowledge: A Critical Review of Techniques for Probing Its Organization.” European Journal of Science Education 2 (2): 107–120.10.1080/0140528800020202
   Google Scholar
• Taşar, M. F. 2001. “A Case Study of a Novice College Student’s Alternative Framework and Learning of Force and Motion.” PhD diss., University of The Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Technology Education Centre. 2008. “What is Technology?” Accessed November 27. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/watistec.html
   Google Scholar
• Tinajero, C., and M. F. Paramo. 1997. “Field-dependence/Independence and Academic Achievement: A Re-examination of Their Relationship.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 199–212.10.1111/bjep.1997.67.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C.-C., and C.-M. Huang. 2001. “Development of Cognitive Structures and Information Processing Strategies of Elementary School Students Learning about Biological Reproduction.” Journal of Biological Education 36 (1): 21–26.10.1080/00219266.2001.9655791
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C.-C., and C.-M. Huang. 2002. “Exploring Students’ Cognitive Structures in Learning Science: A Review of Relevant Methods.” Journal of Biological Education 36 (4): 163–169.10.1080/00219266.2002.9655827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volk, K. S., and W. E. Dugger. 2005. “East Meets West: What Americans and Hong Kong People Think about Technology.” Journal of Technology Education 17 (1): 53–68.
   Google Scholar
• de Vries, M. J. 2003. “Editorial.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13 (3): 199–205.10.1023/A:1026179627059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries, M. J. 2005. “Teaching about Technology: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Technology for Non-philosophers.” Science & Technology Education Library 27, Published by Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Weymer, R. A. 2002. “Factors Affecting Students' Performance in Sixth Grade Modular Technology Education.” Journal of Technology Education 13 (2): 34–47.
   Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A. 1962. Psychological Differentiation. Studies of Development. New York: Wiley.10.1037/13128-000
   Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., and D. R. Goodenough. 1981. Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. NY: International University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., D. R. Goodenough, C. A. Moore, and P. W. Cox. 1977. “Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications.” Review of Educational Research 47: 1–64.10.3102/00346543047001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., P. K. Oltman, E. Raskin, and S. A. Karp. 1971. A Manual for the Embedded Figure Tests. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yates, G. C. R. 2000. “Applying Learning Style Research in the Classroom: Some Cautions and the Way Ahead.” In International Perspectives on Individual Differences: Cognitive Styles, edited by R. J. Riding and S. G. Rayner, 347–364. Stamford: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L. F., and R. J. Sternberg. 2009. Perspectives on Intellectual Styles. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ziane, M. 1990. “The ApplInventionion of Information Processing Theory to the Learning of Physics.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow.
   Google Scholar