YILDIRIM / A Case Study on the Use of Materials by Classroom Teachers... 249 The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to Turkish, Language Validity, & Psychometric Investigation Ülkü TOSUN*, Engin KARADA ** Abstract The purpose of this study was to adapt the CTI to Turkish and invesitgate the Turkish version of the CTI. First, the CTI items were translated to Turkish and translation validity of the items were investigated. Second, for the language equivalency of the CTI, 42 ESL teachers from eight different secondary schools in stanbul were selected as a sample. First the CTI English version and 3 weeks later the CTI Turkish version were applied to this group, respectively. Next, 362 teachers from 20 different secondary schools at in stanbul were sampled and reponded to the Turkish CTI in order to investigate the inventroy s reliability. A paired-samples t-test was used in order to obtain the language eguivalency of the CTI items. In addition, Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficients were used in order to determine itemtotal and item-reminder analyses. Independent sample t-tests were used to define the differences between the lower and upper group means acquired by the CTI scores. An exploratory factor analysis was done in order to investigate the factor structure of the Turkish CTI on the basis of Turkish teachers scores. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was used to investigate the reliability of inventory. Key Words Constructive thinking, language validity, reliability, validity. * Assist. Prof. Dr., Yeditepe University, Faculty of Education, Department of Education Sciences, 26th August Campus, Kay sdag Street, 34755 Kad koy-istanbul, Turkey. E.mail: utosun@yeditepe.edu.tr ** Correspondence: Research Assistant, Yeditepe University, Faculty of Education, Department of Education Sciences, 26th August Campus, Kay sdag Street, 34755 Kad koy-istanbul, Turkey. E.mail: ekaradag@yeditepe.edu.tr & engin.karadag@hotmail.com URL: www.enginkaradag.com Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 8 (1) January 2008 249-259 2008 E itim Dan flmanl ve Araflt rmalar letiflim Hizmetleri Tic. Ltd. fiti.
250 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Generally, constructivist learning approach is established by people s behaviors, which are oriented to an aim as well as active constructivists of knowledge and meanings instead of passive ones (Cobb, 1994). Savery and Duffy (1995) evaluated constructivist learning approach as a philosophical view which is interested in arriving at knowledge rather than as another independent learning approach. Additionally, from Maharg s (2000) point of view, focus is on how knowledge is interpreted by the learner in constructivist learning approach. Questions based on this focus are; what do learners know? will learners need what they know in the future? and how will they constructknowledge? (p.193). In the usual methods, either teachers supply the knowledge or learners are informed by books or other sources (Beevevino, Dengel, & Adams, 1999, p. 276). However, to perceive knowledge does not mean to construct knowledge (Piaget, 1952; Laney, 1990). When a person learns new knowledge/information they use their previous rules that they had constructed to define and explain the world around them, or constitute or form new rules for explaining the perceived knowledge (Brooks & Brooks, 1993, p.41). On the basis of constructive learning approach, the three-fold model of the authoriterian teacher/ dependent child/ scholastic knowledge has been replaced by another three-fold model including guiding teacher/ participative child/ meaningful knowledge in elementary and secondary school programs (Kaya & Tüfekçi, 2006; Karada & Korkmaz, 2007). In this new approach, teachers behave as a whole with their personal, vocational, and social characteristics in the classroom (Kesici, 2006; Savran & Uyan, 2006). According to research findings, some personality characteristics of teachers such as hard-working, fineness, optimism, patient, cheerful, warm, pleasant, good-tempered are significant variables to create a positive classoom environment (Feldman, 1986; Hofstein & Ben-zvi, 1990; Murray, 1990; Rushton, Morgan, & Richard, 2007; Zhang, 2007). Consequently, students tend to learn better when teachers support rather than control them (Tosun, 2002). When new elementary and secondary school programs based on the constructivist approach have been investigated it is found that both individual thinking of teachers and students are appreciated and thinking is the most important concept in these programs. There-
TOSUN, KARADA / The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to... 251 fore, Nickerson (1987) and TDK (1998) has expressed thinking as the neutral and skilful usage of knowledge and pure and neutral expression of organized thinking (Kazanc, 1989). Hunt and Ellis (1993) logically defined thinking as the ability to distinguish the differences between valid and invalid consequences. Sternberg (1994) defined a thinking style as something that helps think and preferred by individuals for using his/her own abilities/skills (Çatalbafl, 2006, p. 198). After appliying the new programs, a lot of inquires have been done about the teachers, students & parents (Gömleksiz, 2005; Gözütok, Akgün & Karacao lu, 2007; Ersoy, 2007; Yap c & Leblebiciler, 2007; Karada, 2007). Additionally, the number of research has increased in the area of critical thinking (Semerci, 2003; Özdemir, 2005; Güven & Kürüm, 2006), logical thinking (Yaman, 2005; Yaman & Karamustafao lu, 2006), and creative thinking (Ekiz, 2005; Korkmaz, 2006; Yenilmez & Yolcu, 2007). However, the literature still lacks studies that specifically focus on constructivist thinking styles both among teachers and students. Constructive thinking conducted by Epstein based on the Cognitive Experiential Self Theory (1973) is a model in which individuals authomatically think about the ways of solving their real-life problems easily and with minimum effort even under stress. Constructivist thinking is definetely planned and can not be a random thinking process (Karadeniz, 2006). Branch (2000) pointed out that constructivist thinking differs from usual thing processes because individuals are consicious in this process and observe themselves thinking. While improving the constructivist thinking model, Epstein has taken into consideration the tasks of teachers. According to thinking theories, in general, individuals have not been considered systematically (Dewey, 1973). In other words, individuals have been studied through unplanned ways. In constructivist thinking, individuals think to fulfill some definite goals (Epstein & Meier, 1989; Katz & Epstein, 1991; Epstein, 1992; Epstein, Pacini, Heier & Denes-Raj, 1996; Epstein, 2001). The Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) is the first tool to measure constructivist thinking developed by Epstein (Epstein & Meier, 1989) and revised by Epstein (1993). The CTI was developed to define the indications of individuals thoughts as: spontaneous, automatic, and constructivist or nonconstructivist (Epstein & Feist, 1999; Burns & Fedewa, 2005, Nelson, Low, Stottlemyer, & Martinez, 2004).
252 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Inventories to measure general thinking styles are limited in Turkey (Sünbül, 2004; Fer, 2005) and there exists no psychometrically sound inventory that can be used to study constructive thinking in international research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to adopt the inventory that has been shown to have international reliability and validity about thinking to Turkish. Thus, in this study first the language validity of the Turkish form and then validity and reliabilty of Turkish version were studied. Method The original CTI form developed by Epstein was accessed as a microfiche. The necessary permissions for adaptation of inventory was received via e-mail from Seymour Epstein who developed it. The CTI items were tarnslated from English to Turkish independently by 8 English language specialists who never saw the inventory before. Then, these specialists came together and compared thier translations by focus-group discussions. Consequently, a temporary Turkish form was constructed for each item (Mertens, 1998). At the next stage, Turkish language specialists evaluated each item of the Turkish form for grammar and comprehension. After the Turkish form was completed, two specialists translated all Turkish items back to original language (English). The English language specialists approved that the English items of the inventory matched their back-translations. After that, to investigate the language equivalency of the Turkish version of inventory, the first the English form and, 3 weeks later, the Turkish form were administered to 42 ESL teachers. For language equivalency between the scores of two different forms, a paired samples t-test was calculated. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used in order to determine item-total and item-reminder analyses for the inventory item-differentiation whereas independent samples t-test was used to compare 27 % of the lower-upper group item scores. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was used to determine the internal reliability of the inventory and item differentiation. No consistency has not been found in the literature about whether factor-analysis is done for language adaptation (Sapnas, 2004; Preacher & McCallum, 2002; Osborne & Costello, 2004). Because of both Epstein s explanations (2001) and to investigate construct va-
TOSUN, KARADA / The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to... 253 lidity of the Turkish inventory, exploratory factor analysis was preferred instead of confirmatory factor analysis (bk. Balc, 2000; Bryman & Cramer, 1997; Turgut & Baykul, 1992). The construct validity of inventory could not be studied because there is not any relevant instruments to compare with. SPSS 13.0 program was used for reliability and validity procedures of the inventory. Results According to the results of a paired samples t-test which was acquired to define language equivalency of inventory items, no significant differences could be found between the responses to the English & Turkish versions except on items 6, 16, 29, 32, 50, 75, 92, and 107. The results of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient analysis which was obtained to define item-total and item-reminder found statistically significant positive correlations of all items except items 16, 29, 50, 67, 92. A significant difference between the scores of lower and upper group means obtained from inventory items was found for all items at p <.001 level. First, after gathering the data, it was understood that factor analysis and Kaiser Meyer Olkin =.71 and Bartlet (p >.01) test analyses could be formed for the construct validity of the inventory. The unrelated factors of the inventory were investigated by varimax orthogonal rotated technique. Exploratory factor analysis started with the 96 items. In the first results of analyses, the loaded factors of some items were found under.30. By eliminating these items, exploratory factor analysis was reconstructed with the remaining 85 items (Turgut, 1997; Bulufl, 2001). In the results of the second exploratory factor analysis, the items were accumulated on 14 factors that their loadings were more than 1 and the lowest loading is.32. When this finding was investigated by varimax orthogonal rotated technique, it was obtained that each item showed the highest load on one factor. Thus the factor construct of the Turkish version inventory closely resembled the factor construct of the original forms. Due to the findings of both principal components analysis in the factor analysis and varimax orthogonal rotated technique, the items accumulated on 14 factors with 47 % of the total variance. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to define internal consistency of the factors of inventory, and changed between.53 and.75, it was also calculated as.79 for all items of the inventory.
254 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Discussion This study examined the adaptation and psychometric properties of the CTI through five different techniques. They are; (i) the definition of language equivalency, (ii) item-total and item-reminder correlations, (iii) item-differentiation characteristics, (iv) exploratory factor analysis, and (v) internal consistency. As a result of statistical analyses, the Turkish version is considered equivilant to the original form. Item-total and item-reminder correlations were found to be statistically significant, with the exception of 5 items. To define whether a significant difference between the scores obtained from inventory items of upper 27 % and lower 27 % group means, independent samples t-test were carried out and a significant difference was found for inventroy items at p>.001 level. Based on this conclusion, it can be identified that the items have good differentiation characteristics (Thorndike, Cunningham, Thorndike & Hagen, 1991; Oosterhof, 1994; Ergin, 1995, fieker & Gençdo an, 2006). As a result of exploratory factor analysis, the items were accumulated on 7 components and 14 factors that their loadings are more than 1, and the lowest loading is.32. This is a low level for a variable, so the factors loading.30 have to be eliminated from the inventory (Kline, 1994). Instead factor loadings higher than.30 show that the factor analysis validity is high. When this finding was reinvestigated using varimax orthogonal rotated technique, each item had high load for only one factor and inventory had the same factor loading with the original form. The validity variable of the original form was not fulfilled for the Turkish version of the form. It can be explained that inventory items and factors are different from each other culturally (Epstein, 2001). The items were accumulated on 14 factors have 47 % of the total variance. Higher than 30 % variance rate is accepted as efficient for inventory adaptations in behavioral sciences (Büyüköztürk, 2002). Besides that the internal consistency coefficient of CTI factors in terms of Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient has changed between.526 and.751, Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient is.788 for all items of the inventory. Therefore, it can be explained that the reliability level of the inventory is high. f the reliability coefficient is equal and higher than 0,70, it is accepted as
TOSUN, KARADA / The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to... 255 a general criterion of the inventory (Özgüven, 1994). According to these findings inventory having a high Cronbach Alpha coefficient is reliable. Also item analysis results show that all items are appropriate to measure constructivist thinking. Consequently, this study indicates Constructive Thinking Inventory s adaptation and language equivalence. Additionally validity and reliability studies have been conducted. In the adaptation of Constructive Thinking Inventory which consists of 7 variables and 14 factors to Turkish culture, exploratory factor analysis findings onsistent with the real findings of the original form have supplied opportunities for Turkish researchers to fullfill comperative studies. In future studies, the psychometric characteristics of the nventroy have to analyze all parts. For example, the mentioned inventory, regarding concurrent validity, must be compared with any valid and reliable inventory used in Turkey. Additionally confirmatory factor analysis has been carried out to confirm whether or not the factor design of the inventory is consistent in Turkish culture.
256 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE References/Kaynakça Balc, A. (2000). Sosyal bilimlerde araflt rma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: TDFO Yay nc l k Ltd. Beevevino, M. M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (1999). Costructivist theory in the classroom: Internalizing concepts through inquiry learning. The Clearing House, 72 (5), 275-278. Branch, J. B. (2000). The relationship anwng critical thinking,clinical decisionmaking, and clinical practica: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Idaho, Idaho. Brooks, G., & Brooks M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms, Virginia: ASCD Alexandria. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative daha analysis with SPSS for Windows: A guide for social scientists. New York: Routledge. Bulufl, M. (2001). Kifli alg ölçe inin ö retmen adaylar için güvenirlik ve geçerlik çal flmas. E itim Araflt rmalar, 5, 29-35. Burns, L. R., & Fedewa, B. A. (2005). Cognitive styles: links with perfectionistic thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 103-113. Büyüköztürk, fi. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitab. Ankara: PegemA Yay nc l k. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivism and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13-20. Çatalbafl, E. (2006) Lise ö rencilerinin düflünme stillerinin akademik baflar ve ders tutumlar aras ndaki iliflki. Yay mlanmam fl yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya. Dewey, J. (1973). How we think, Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. Dinca, M. (2005). Experiential intelligence and social axioms as effects of the cultural context. Sustainability for Humanity and Environment, 5 (2), 259-262. Ekiz, D. (2005). Problem çözme arac l yla yarat c düflünmeyi gelifltirme. Ça dafl E itim Dergisi, 30 (316), 13-19. Hunt, R. R. & Ellis, H. C. (1993) Fundamentals of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Brown and Benchmark. Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404-416 Epstein, S. (1991). Cognitive-experiential Self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In R. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: Convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp.111-137). NY: Guilford Epstein, S. (1992). Coping ability, negative self- evaluation, and overgeneralization: Experiment and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 826-836. Epstein, S. (1993). Manual for the constructive thinking inventory. MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Epstein, S. (2001). CTI professional manual. NY: PAR Inc. Epstein, S., & Feist, G. J. (1999). Relation between self -and other- acceptance and its moderation by identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (2), 309-315.
TOSUN, KARADA / The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to... 257 Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57 (2), 332-339. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Heier, H., & Denes-Raj, V. (1996) Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390-405. Ergin, D. Y. (1995). Ölçeklerde geçerlik güvenirlik. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk E itim Fakültesi E itim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7, 125-148. Ersoy, A. (2007). lkö retim program n n (1-5. s n flar) uygulamalar na iliflkin aile görüflleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada E itim Bilimleri, 7 (2), 727-763. Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal characteristics: A review and synthesis. Research in Higher Education, 24 (2), 139-213. Fer, S. (2005). Düflünme stilleri envanterinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çal flmas. Kuram ve Uygulamada E itim Bilimleri, 5 (1), 31-68. Gömleksiz, M. N. (2005). Yeni ilkö retim program n n uygulamadaki etkilili inin de erlendirilmesi. Kuramdan ve Uygulamada E itim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5 (2), 339-384. Gözütok, D., Akgün, Ö. E., & Karacao lu, Ö. C. (2005). lkö retim programlar n n ö retmen yeterlilikleri aç s ndan de erlendirilmesi. E itimde Yans malar VIII Yeni lkö retim Program n n De erlendirme Sempozyumu bildiriler kitab içinde (s. 17-40). Ankara: Sim Matbaas. Güven, M. & Kürüm, D. (2006). Ö renme stilleri ve elefltirel düflünme aras ndaki iliflkiye genel bir bak fl. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (1), 75-89. Heth, J. T., & Somer, E. (2002). Characterizing stress tolerance: Controllability awareness and its relationship to perceived stress and reported health. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 883-895. Hofstein, A., & Ben-zvi, R. (1990). Classroom behaviour of exemplary and nonexemplary chemistry teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 8 (2), 185-194. Karada, E. (2007). Yap land rmac ö renme ile ilgili ö retmen yeterlili i ölçe- inin gelifltirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada E itim Bilimleri, 7 (1), 153-175. Karada, E. & Korkmaz, T. (2007). Yap land rmac ö renmeye genel bak fl. (Ed.), E. Karada & T. Korkmaz Kuramdan uygulamaya yap land rmac ö renme yaklafl m 1-5. s n f etkinlik örnekleriyle içinde (s. 37-53). Ankara: Kök Yay nc l k. Karadeniz, A. (2006). Liselerde elefltirel düflünme e itimi. Yay mlanmam fl yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi E itim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara. Katz, L., & Epstein, S. (1991). Constructive thinking and coping with laboratory-induced stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 789-800. Kaya, Z. & Tüfekçi, S. (2006) Yap land rmac yaklafl ma göre ö renme ortam ve ö retmen. E itimde Ça dafl Yönelimler III. Yap land rmac l k ve E itime Yans malar Sempozyumu bildiriler kitab içinde (s. 5-7). Özel Tevfik Fikret Lisesi, zmir.
258 EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: THEORY & PRACTICE Kazanc, O. (1989). E itimde elefltirici düflünme ve ö retimi, Ankara: Kazanc Hukuk Yay nlar. Kesici, A. E. (2006). Ortaö retim kurumlar ndaki ö rencilerin iletiflim çat flmalar na girme e ilimleri ve oluflturmac l k. E itimde Ça dafl Yönelimler III. Yap land rmac l k ve E itime Yans malar Sempozyumu bildiriler kitab içinde (s. 49-51). Özel Tevfik Fikret Lisesi, zmir. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge. Korkmaz,. (2006). Yeni ilkö retim program n n ö retmenler taraf ndan de erlendirilmesi. I. Ulusal S n f Ö retmenli i Kongresi Bildiriler kitab içinde (s. 249-260), Ankara: Kök Yay nc l k. Laney, D. (1990). Micro computers and social studies. OCSS Rewiev, 26, 30-37. Maharg, P. (2000). Rogers, constructivism and jurisprudence: Educational critique and the legal curriculum. International Journal of The Legal Profession, 7 (3), 189-203. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and quantities approaches. London: Sage. Murray, H. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student Instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (2 ), 250-61. Nelson, D. B., Low, G. R., Stottlemyer, B. G. & Martinez, S. (2004). Personel respnsibility map. Oshkosh: Oakwood Solutions. Nickerson, R. S. (1987). Why teach thinking?. In (Ed), J. B. Baron & R. J. Sternberg Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 27-37). New York: W. H. Freeman. Oosterhof, A. (1994). Classroom applications of educational measurement. N.J: Macmillan Publishing Company. Osborne, J. W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluatin, 9 (11), http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11. Web adresinden 11 Kas m 2007 tarihinde edinilmifltir. Özdemir, M. S. (2005). Üniversite ö rencilerinin elefltirel düflünme becerilerinin çeflitli de iflkenler aç s ndan de erlendirilmesi. Türk E itim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3 (3), 297-316. Özgüven, E. (1994). Psikolojik testler. Ankara: Yeni Do ufl Matbaas. Piaget, J. (1952). Judgment adn reasoning in the child. New York: Humanities Press. Preacher, K. J., & McCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample size. Behavior Genetics, 32 (2), 153-161. Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teacher s Myers-Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching & Teacher Education, 23 (4), 432-441. Sapnas, K. G. (2004). Letters to the editor: Determining adequate sample size. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36 (1), 4-9.
TOSUN, KARADA / The Adaptation of the Constructive Thinking Inventory (CTI) to... 259 Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38. Savran, C. & Uyan, G. (2006). Yeni e itim sistemine göre temel düflünme becerileri e itimi. stanbul: Livane Yay nlar. Semerci, Ç. (2003). Elefltirel düflünme becerilerinin gelifltirilmesi. E itim ve Bilim, 28 (127), 64-70 Sternberg, R. J. (1994) Allowing for thinking styles, Educational Leadership, 52 (3), 36-40. Sünbül, A. M. (2004). Düflünme stilleri ölçe inin geçerlik ve güvenirli i. E itim ve Bilim, 29 (132), 25-42 fieker, H., & Gençdo an, B. (2006). Psikolojide ve e itimde ölçme arac gelifltirme. Ankara: Nobel Yay n Da t m. TDK. (1998). Türkçe sözlük. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yay nlar. Thorndike, R. M., Cunningham, G. K., Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: Mac Milan Publishing Company. Tosun, Ü. (2002) Onurlu disiplin. stanbul: Beyaz Yay nlar. Turgut, M. F. (1997). E itimde ölçme ve de erlendirme metotlar. Ankara: Gül Yay nevi. Turgut, M. F. & Baykul, Y. (1992). Ölçme teknikleri. Ankara: ÖSYM Yay nlar. Yaman, S. & Karamustafao lu, S. (2006). Ö retmen adaylar n n mant ksal düflünme becerileri ve kimya dersine yönelik tutumlar n n incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan E itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 91-106. Yaman, S. (2005). Fen bilgisi ö retiminde probleme dayal ö renmenin mant ksal düflünme becerisinin geliflimine etkisi. Türk Fen E itimi Dergisi (TUSED), [Online Dergi], 2 (1), 56-70. Yap c, M. & Leblebiciler, N. H. (2007). Ö retmenlerin yeni ilkö retim program na iliflkin görüflleri. lkö retim Online, 6 (3), 480-490. Yenilmez, K. & Yolcu, B. (2007). Ö retmen davran fllar n n yarat c düflünme becerilerinin geliflimine katk s. Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi, 18, 95-105. Zhang, L. (2007). Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Personality & Individual Differences, 43 (4), 669-679.