This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 11 October 2014, At: 09:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Analyzing the cognitive teachingstyles of preservice and cooperatingpreschool teachers in TurkeyAbdulkadir Kabadayi aa Selcuk University , TurkeyPublished online: 20 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Abdulkadir Kabadayi (2007) Analyzing the cognitive teaching styles ofpreservice and cooperating preschool teachers in Turkey, Early Child Development and Care, 177:3,275-293, DOI: 10.1080/03004430500473276

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430500473276

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Child Development and CareVol. 177, No. 3, April 2007, pp. 275–293

ISSN 0300-4430 (print)/ISSN 1476-8275 (online)/07/030275–19© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03004430500473276

Analyzing the cognitive teaching styles of preservice and cooperating preschool teachers in TurkeyAbdulkadir Kabadayi*Selcuk University, TurkeyTaylor and Francis LtdGECD_A_147310.sgm10.1080/03004430500473276Early Childhood Development and Care0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis0000000002006AbdulkadirKabadayiakkabadayi@hotmail.com

It is evident that all teachers have individual attributes relating to their teaching processes and theyteach differently at different paces because of their biological and psychological differences.Naturally, mismatches often occur between the teaching styles of student-teachers in preschool andthe teaching style of the cooperating teachers, with unfortunate effects on the quality of the student-teachers’ teaching and on their attitudes toward the class and the subject. The aim of the descriptivestudy was to investigate the relationship between student-teachers’ and cooperating teachers’cognitive styles and their instructional preferences. The sample (n = 375) included 232 preschoolstudent-teachers majoring in child development and education at Selcuk University, and 143 coop-erating preschool teachers who currently teach in different preschools in Turkey. Subjects’ cognitiveteaching styles were assessed using the Instant Insight Inventory. In general, the chi-square resultsshowed that there was a significant difference between the student-teachers’ and cooperatingpreschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimensions (P = 173.395, < 0.05). In general, the dataalso indicate that there was a significant difference between student-teachers and cooperatingteachers in manipulating instructional techniques/activities in respect of four teaching tempera-ments (P = 47.795, < 0.05). As a consequence of the data obtained, some suggestions were madeto the cooperating preschool teachers to match their cognitive teaching styles to the styles ofpreschool student-teachers to foster the preschool students’ various domains effectively.

Keywords: Cooperating teachers; Preschool teachers; Cognitive teaching styles

Introduction

Nowadays, educationalists, (cooperating) teachers and pedagogues are investigatingthe ways of productive teaching/learning, and they have been making great effortfor the students to learn more effectively and in a shorter time, by examining the

*Feritpasa Mah, Kerkuk Cad, Yasemen Sok, Goncagul Sit, 1/28 Selcuklu, Konya, Turkey. Email:akkabadayi@hotmail.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

276 A. Kabadayi

student-teachers from biological, sociological, cognitive, psychological and culturalperspectives. Therefore, they need all the special help they can get to understandtheir student-teachers’ natural learning/teaching style patterns and behaviors. One ofthe increasingly popular and useful tools that help teachers is understanding learners’individual learning/teaching styles and differences. It is believed that learning/teach-ing style match is necessary among those who are engaged in education, teaching andtraining at every level to make an optimum contribution to education (Altan, 1998;Kabadayi, 2001). Similarly, it is stated that cognitive teaching style match betweenpreschool students and their cooperating teachers will help the preschool studentsenhance their academic, cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains (Oxfordet al., 1992). Some researchers have used some instruments to define the teachers’teaching and personality styles and students’ learning styles. One of the existinginstruments that measures the teachers’ teaching and personality styles is the InstantInsight Inventory (III), which is based on the Jungian psychological type and theMyers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Mamchur, 1996).

Theoretical framework

Keefe (1979) explains the learning process in school in the frame of a triangle as thelearning atmosphere, teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning styles. It seemsthey are so interrelated that it is difficult to attain one of them without the others asthe learning/teaching is a two-way process. As a multidimensional process, Reiff(1992) classifies learning style into five stimulus categories: environmental (sound,light, temperatures, design), emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility),physical (perception, intake, time, mobility), sociological (self, partner, team,mentor, varied), and psychological elements (global/analytical, impulsive/reflective).Moreover, it is not a new concept that represents both inherited characteristics andenvironmental influences. Keefe and Monk (1986) define learning styles as thepredominant and preferred manner in which individuals take-in, retain, process andrecall information (pp. 1–2). As is seen, learning styles include not only the cognitivedomain, but also the affective and physiological domains (Oxford et al., 1992).

With regard to teacher’s teaching style or instructional style, it is the way that a teacherhandles a learning task and possesses a teaching style. It can be defined as thepredilection toward behavior in the teaching–learning exchange that comes fromvalues, beliefs, attitudes, aspirations, and personal and social histories and cultures(Heimlich, 1990). Claxton and Murrell (1987) state that there is usually a productivelearning environment if the teachers’ instructional styles and their students’ learningstyles match. It is important for a teacher to be aware of the learning style preferencesof the student-teachers, and of his or her own preferred way of instruction. Adjust-ments can then be made to accommodate the students’/student-teachers’ needs(Boylan, 1984; Whitman et al., 1986), and student-teachers can be shown how tobecome more responsible for their own learning/teaching (Gregorc, 1979b).

Students are unique in their own ways, including the way they learn. The charac-teristics of student-teachers are just as diverse as those of the students. As its name

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 277

suggests, the role of student-teachers is to learn techniques and strategies about howto teach the knowledge gained during their education to the students effectively. Atthis point, the student-teachers are considered as learners and observers and at thesame time they are prosperous teachers-to-be, while the cooperating teachers’ role isto supervise, guide and train the student-teachers on the job both pedagogically andmethodologically by handling their cognitive learning and teaching styles. In additionto the Behaviorist and Social learning/teaching strategies, the student-teachers are alsotrained and equipped with cognitive learning strategies including: how a studentperceives and classifies information; how information is ordered and sequenced; whatstrategies are used to solve problems; whether concrete or abstract information ishandled more efficiently; whether preference is for fluid, spontaneous learning or forcarefully planned studies; and whether a student is primarily a visual, auditory or tactilelearner in practicum (Davis, 1989). Furthermore, some researchers (Gregorc, 1979a;Garger & Guild, 1984) suggest that the learning style, teaching style and personalitystyle of teachers have implications for student learning. Studies have investigated theselected teacher characteristics of learning (Witkin, 1973; Gregorc, 1979a; Avery,1985; Zippert, 1985; Jacobs, 1990), teaching style (Witkin, 1973; Dunn & Dunn,1979; Gregorc, 1979a; Koppleman, 1980; Garger & Guild, 1984; Avery, 1985) andpersonality style (Myers & Myers, 1980; Hoffman & Betkouski, 1981; DeNovellis &Lawrence, 1983; Lawrence, 1984). Cano et al. (1991) concluded that, despite theamount of related research regarding learning styles, teaching styles and personalitystyles, preschool teacher educators were unable to fully utilize the results becausepreschool teachers were not included enough in the samples of previous research.

Some researchers put forward that the MBTI is used to measure both teachers’teaching and students’ learning and personality styles by conducting the differentversions of the inventory. The MBTI, a measurement of personality style, has alsobeen used in learning style assessment (Lawrence, 1984; Sugarman, 1985) andteaching style prediction (Myers & Myers, 1980; Hoffman & Betkouski, 1981). Onceteachers know and understand their own personality characteristics, it thus becomeseasier to understand and teach those who are of different personality styles thanthemselves (DeNovellis & Lawrence, 1983). The MBTI reports an individual’s pref-erences on four scales. Each scale represents two opposite preferences. The fourscales are the Extraversion–Introversion (EI) Scale, Sensing–Intuition (SN) Scale,Thinking–Feeling (TF) Scale, and Judgment–Perception (JP) Scale. The EI scaledescribes whether an individual likes to focus his/her attention on the outer or innerworld. The SN scale describes how an individual perceives or acquires information;does he/she use his/her senses or does he/she rely on intuition? The TF scale describeshow the individual makes decisions or judgments about something either throughthinking or feeling. The JP scale describes how an individual orients himself/herselfto the outer world by taking primarily a judging attitude or a perceptive attitude.

Are teachers’ teaching styles consistent with their learning styles? Dunn and Dunnstated that ‘teachers teach the way they learned’ (1979, p. 241). Dunn and Dunn’s(1979) conclusion is supported by other researcher (Gregorc, 1979a). However,Koppleman (1980) commented that there is a lack of research concerning the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

278 A. Kabadayi

influence of a person’s learning style on his/her teaching style. The researchersassume that positive perceptions of the students who have the same cognitive styleswith the teachers’ or generally match teachers’ cognitive teaching styles enhance theirlearning (Witkin et al., 1977; Hudak, 1985).

At least 20 different dimensions of learning and teaching styles have been deter-mined (Parry, 1984; Shipman & Shipman, 1985; Ehrman, 1988; Oxford, 1990).

In an attempt to describe an individual’s teaching style, Heimlich (1990) defined twodomains: sensitivity and inclusion. An individual can be classified into one of four teach-ing styles based on his/her sensitivity and inclusion scores. The low-inclusion and low-sensitivity quadrant is labeled ‘expert’; the teacher is subject-oriented and tends to usethe lecture method of instruction. Teachers scoring in the low-inclusion and high-sensitivity quadrant are termed ‘providers’; they are learner-centered and seek to teacheffectively. ‘Providers’ tend to use group discussion, demonstrations and guided activ-ities. The quadrant defined by high inclusion and low sensitivity is labeled ‘facilitator’.Teachers falling into the ‘facilitator’ category are teacher-centered and the method ofinstruction is dictated by the subject matter. Teachers in the final quadrant with scoresof high inclusion and high sensitivity are ‘enablers’; they are very learner-centered andthe learners define both the activity and the process in the learning environment.

Having conducted the learners’ cognitive learning style version of the MBTI,Kabadayi (2004) classified 16 cognitive learning styles (described later), andcompared five cognitive learning styles (ISFP, ISFJ, ISTP, ESTP, INFP) and 11cognitive learning styles (ENTJ, ESTJ, INTP, ESFJ, ENFJ, INFJ, ESFP, INTJ,ISTJ, ENFP, ENTP) separately in respect of their gender. As a result of statisticalanalysis, Kabadayi found an insignificant difference among both five (P = 0.194, >0.5) and 11 cognitive learning styles (P = 0.80, > 0.05) separately (2004, pp. 10–11).

Dunn (1986) noted that a person’s style can change over time as a result ofmaturation. Kolb (1984) has suggested that ‘as a result of our hereditary equipment,most people develop learning styles that emphasize some learning abilities overothers’ (pp. 76–77). Through socialization experiences in family, school and work,people come to resolve the conflicts between being active and reflective and betweenbeing immediate and analytical in characteristic ways, thus lending to reliance on oneof the four basic forms of knowing. Dunn also asserted that a match between astudent’s styles and a teacher’s styles will lead to improved student attitudes andhigher academic achievement. Similarly, cognitive style of cooperating teacher/student-teacher compatibility affects teaching/learning in an educational setting.Saracho (1993) supports this by confirming that the highest scores on a standardizedachievement test are achieved by the field-independent match; that is, five-year-oldfield-independent students who are with field-independent teachers. After one year,students who are with field-independent teachers obtain higher achievement scoresthan students who are with field-dependent teachers.

Serious mismatches may occur between the learning styles of student-teachers in aclass and the teaching styles of the instructors (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Schmeck,1988; Oxford et al., 1991; Lawrence, 1993), with unfortunate potential conse-quences. The student-teachers tend to be bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 279

tests, get discouraged about the course, and may conclude that they are no good atpracticing and teaching the subject of the course in the future (Godleski, 1984; Smith& Renzulli, 1984; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Oxford et al., 1991).

The strength of the MBTI preference has been assessed for millions of people usingit (Myers, 1980, 1985), and the different ways in which sensors and intuitorsapproach learning have been characterized (Lawrence, 1993). Moody (1988) admin-istered the MBTI to 491 college language students at the first-year and second-yearlevels. Fifty-nine percent of the students were determined to be intuitors. Manyauthors who have carried out research on cognitive learning styles have noted theimportance of this dichotomous pairing, and various terms have been used to describecategories that appear to have points in common with what we term the sequentialand global categories: analytic and global (Kirby, 1988; Schmeck, 1988); field-indepen-dent and field-dependent (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981); serialistic and holistic (Pask,1988); left-brained and right-brained (Kane, 1984); atomistic and holistic (Marton,1988); and sequential and random (Gregorc, 1982). Luria’s (1980) working brainmodel postulates successive and simultaneous modes of processing, and Pask (1988)similarly distinguishes between stringing and clumping modes of coding informationand structuring responses. Schmeck (1988) believes that the analytic/global dimen-sion encompasses all other cognitive styles, a belief shared by Oxford et al. (1991).

Sadler-Smith and Riding (1999) investigated the relationship between learners’cognitive styles and their instructional preferences and found a significant main effectof wholist-analytical style on collaborative method preference and non-print-basedmedia preference.

Purpose and objective

The purpose of this study was to determine the cognitive teaching styles of preserviceteachers and their cooperating preschool teachers teaching in preschools by conduct-ing the III. To guide this study, the following research questions were investigated:

1. Was there a difference between students and their cooperating teachers in respectof preferred cognitive teaching/personality styles as measured by the III?

2. Was there a difference between students and their cooperating teachers inmanipulating cognitive instructional techniques in respect of cognitive teachingtemperaments?

Methodology

Participants

The population for this descriptive study was preservice teachers majoring in childdevelopment and education at Selcuk University, Turkey, and cooperating preschoolteachers teaching in Konya, which is the largest city of Turkey. The sample waspreservice teachers enrolled in a method of teaching preschool education departmentduring the spring and autumn quarters of 2005 and the preschool teachers who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

280 A. Kabadayi

currently teach in different preschools and nursery schools and daycare centers/kindergartens of Konya. The sample (n = 375) included 232 (mean age = 20 years)preschool student-teachers and 143 (mean age = 32 years) cooperating preschoolteachers. The subjects who participated in this research were female since preschoolteacher education is a female-dominated field in Turkey. Only in the past five yearshave a number of males entered the profession, and they have graduated frompreschool departments recently. It is mandatory that every student-teacher in thethird term, for the ‘school experience’ course, and students who are in the eighth term,for the ‘practicum’ course, attend one of the schools for 14 weeks in all educationfaculties of the universities in Turkey. All of the cooperating teachers were requiredto have a bachelor’s degree and teacher certification, with a few years of experiencein areas related to preschool education. They were chosen from the kindergartens andnursery schools and preschools licensed by the Ministry of National Education andthe General Board of Social Services under the title of Prime Ministry. Their respon-sibilities were to include coordinating and cooperating preschool student-teachers, inaddition to directly mentoring these student teachers. The role of the preschool coop-erating teachers was not envisaged as a supervisory one so much as the provision ofclassroom-based training and other support activities that might help preschoolteachers to alter and improve the quality of their teaching practices. In this process,the coordinating teachers often help the student-teachers to prepare for the teachingprofession both methodologically and pedagogically.

Turkish context

Turkey has had more than 150 years of experience in respect of teacher training. Thefirst contemporary attempt related to teacher training started with the opening ofteacher training college named Darulmuallimin on 16 March 1848 in Istanbul. Afterthe declaration of the Turkish Republic, the most important contribution to educa-tion was that teaching was legally put into the position of ‘profession’. With the releaseof this law, great efforts were made to train contemporary teachers to heighten thelevel of Turkish nation to the contemporary civilizations, to teach the principles andrevaluations of Atatürk, the father of Turkish Republic, to the students, and to helpTurkey develop socio-economically.

Before 1981, like all other teacher education institutions, the School of Educationwas both academically and administratively under the control of the Ministry of Educa-tion. It was a three-year institution. With the 1981 reforms it was transformed into afour-year faculty of teacher education. The teacher education program was transferredfrom the Ministry of Education to the universities. Currently, all Turkish universitiesare ruled by the higher education law of the Higher Education Council (YOK).

With regard to preschool education in Turkey, it has made slow progress duringthe Turkish Republic period. At present, the demand for preschool education,especially in big cities and industrial areas, is increasing gradually. It is unfortunatethat the widespread preschool education is attained at the lowest level when comparedwith education at different levels, such as elementary and secondary school education,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 281

and the rate of schooling is around 15%, which is lower than European countries(Guclu, 2005). On the other hand, according to the source of National Education,the number of preschool children is about eight million at present and the number ofthe preschool students is 437,771, while the number of the preschool teachers is 22,030(www.meb.gov.tr). Today, preschool education is not mandatory for children undersix years old, but preschools are opened as independent nursery schools or kindergar-tens under the title of primary schools or are denominated to various formal or informalinstitutions.

Today, most of the faculties of education in Turkey offer bachelor programs fortraining preschool (kindergarten) teachers who are employed by both the Ministry ofEducation and private schools. Today, there are 77 (53 public and 24 private) univer-sities in Turkey (OSYM, 2004). Out of the 77 universities, 50 (one private, 49 public)have faculties of education and faculties of vocational education, most of which offerdual (both regular and evening) programs. In 2004, 4605 bachelor students enrolledin classroom teaching programs offered under preschool teacher training departments(OSYM, 2004). Students in Turkey are admitted to preschool teacher educationcourse centrally through a nationwide examination that is administered by the StudentSelection and Placement Center (OSYM) every year. The examination consists of theStudent Selection Examination (ÖSS). The maximum numbers of students to beadmitted to each higher education program, the rank of the scores of candidates wish-ing to enter the same higher education programs and the candidates’ list and rankingof higher education programs are among the factors taken into consideration in theselection and placement of students in higher education programs. It should be notedthat Konya, where the university is located, is the largest province of Turkey and islocated inland of Anatolia. Konya is a developed province and has a modern industry;therefore, the city and the university attract successful students.

It is essential that all faculties of education follow a standardized curriculumprescribed by the Higher Education Council (YOK, 1998). In the curriculum in ques-tion, preparation teacher to the teaching profession can be scrutinized in three domainscomprising general culture, special subject training and pedagogy in both programs.

The bachelor course of training preschool teacher can be examined in pedagogical,special subject teaching and general culture domains. The pedagogical domainconsists of 39 credit-hours. The special subject teaching domain, including themajority of the courses, consists of 86 out of the total 146 credit-hours. The generalculture domain comprises 21 credit-hours.

Instrumentation

In this study, the III was conducted to determine both student preschool and coop-erating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching styles. The III was designed byMamchur (1996) for teachers to feel better equipped to develop the curriculum, andto present various activities to foster preschool children’s learning in classroom.Despite the criticism of the MBTI by some researchers, such as McCrae and Costa(1989), most of the researchers tested and agreed on the validity and the reliability of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

282 A. Kabadayi

the MBTI (Casas, 1990; Cooper & Miller, 1991; Tzeng et al., 1991; Furnham &Stringfield, 1993; Uhl & Day, 1993; Mamchur, 1996; Kabadayi, 2004). The IIIinstrument comprised four subsets—introversion and extroversion, intuition and sensa-tion;, thinking and feeling, and perceiving and judging—with 40 informed-choice items.This instrument is based on the Jungian psychological type and the MBTI. Jung(1971) classified all human behaviors into two basic categories as perception andjudgment. A perceiver likes to spend more time in perceiving activities, a judger injudging activities. Jung maintained that individuals prefer perceive either throughtheir senses or their intuition, and prefer to make judgments either through theirthinking and their thinking or feeling process. Although all four functions—sensing,intuition, thinking, and feeling—are present in every individual, one is dominant ormost favored, one is auxiliary and ranks as the second most used function, and thethird is the less often exercised and demands more energy to use. The fourth is aperson’s inferior function, sometimes called the shadow function, and is the mosttyrannical and immature function and is the person’s weak spot. Only with maturity,reflection and conscious use can the inferior function serve the individual, provideaspiration and renewed energy. Myers (1985) mentioned eight psychological typepreferences, as EI, SN, TF, JP keeping opposite types such as extraversion–introversion and judgment–perception stable and crossing with the rest such assensing, intuition, thinking and feeling with the opposites. Mamchur (1996) formed16 cognitive teaching types based on the Jungian psychological type and the MBTI,a brief description of them as they apply to cognitive teaching styles being as follows:

● ENTJ (Extroversion–Intuition–Thinking–Judging): Intellectual challenger, insistsupon critical thinking and concept development. A divergent thinker and organizerwho wants a systematic, analytic plan of action all the times.

● ISFP (Introversion–Sensing–Feeling–Perceiving): Nurturing supporter, valuespractical learning in a positive environment. Observer, realistic, gentle cooperator,creates a useful and caring educational setting.

● ESTJ (Extroversion–Sensing–Thinking–Judging): Realistic, information giver,wants a regulated logical system that is fair and disciplined. A determined manager,wants a practical, purposeful, well-run classroom.

● INFP (Introversion–Intuition–Feeling–Perceiving): Imaginative facilitator, empha-sizes creative thinking and moral development. Original and non-directive inventor,creates a reflective and harmonious educational environment.

● INTP (Introversion–Intuition–Thinking–Perceiving): Inquiring theoretician,emphasizes discovery and independence. Analytic, reflective, curious scientist,wants an open-ended, comprehensive, discovery-oriented classroom.

● ESFJ (Extroversion–Sensing–Feeling–Judging): Empathetic manager, valuescooperative and supportive communications, practical and well-organized. Aconscientious harmonizer, wants a personal, collaborative environment.

● ISTP (Introversion–Sensing–Thinking–Perceiving): Practical trainer, valuesexactness and economy. Objective, non-judgmental analyzer, runs a fair andstraightforward classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 283

● ENFJ (Extroversion–Intuition–Feeling–Judging): Caring simulator, values self-expression and imagination. Analytical inventive, expressive harmonizer, runs adisciplined, original classroom.

● ESTP (Extroversion–Sensing–Thinking–Perceiving): Realistic information giver,good-natured, tolerant, practical, values first hand experience. Competitiveobserver, stresses skill acquisition and purposeful work.

● INFJ (Introversion–Intuition–Feeling–Judging): Stimulating influencer, expressive,values-driven, stresses clarity and moral development. Serious and quietly forcefulinnovator, creates a well-ordered, respectful and stimulating class environment.

● ESFP (Extroversion–Sensing–Feeling–Perceiving): Adaptive supporter, stressesself-development and positive interactions. Friendly and easygoing realist, enjoyspractical, hands-on learning situation.

● INTJ (Introversion–Intuition–Thinking–Judging): Critical challenger, driven by aneed for logic and love of knowledge. Determined inquirer, concerned with the waythe organization serves the individual, runs a thoughtful classroom.

● ISTJ (Introversion–Sensing–Thinking–Judging): Analytical manager, stressespunctuality, fairness and practicality. Organized and competitive realist, concerneda running a stable, conservative classroom.

● ENFP (Extroversion–Intuition–Feeling–Perceiving): Enthusiastic facilitator,enjoys orchestrating educational change. Impulsive energizer, stimulates andencourages personal development, and creative thinking.

● ISFJ (Introversion–Sensing–Feeling–Judging): Conscientious and supportivemanager, values positive interaction and collaboration. Conservative nurturer, runsa stable, practical, purposeful classroom.

● ENTP (Extroversion–Intuition–Thinking–Perceiving): Competitive change agent,enjoys intellectual challenges. Inventive analyzer, strives to understand and inspirestudents and colleagues.

Data collection and analysis

The III instrument was administered to both preservice preschool teachers and coop-erating preschool teachers by the researcher during class sessions of the spring andautumn quarters of 2005. All instruments were hand scored by the researcher and theaggregate data were analyzed by computer. In the process of analyzing data, descrip-tive statistics including chi-square statistics and frequency distribution was used todetermine the cognitive teaching styles of both preservice preschool teachers and theircooperating preschool teachers.

Results

In general, the results (Table 1) indicate that there was a significant differencebetween the students’ and their cooperating preschool teachers’ cognitive teachingstyle dimensions (P = 173.395, < 0.05). In item by item analysis, there was a signifi-cant difference in items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 13, while there existed statistically insignificant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

284 A. Kabadayi

differences between the students’ and their cooperating preschool teachers’ cognitiveteaching style dimensions in items 3, 6–12 and 14–16.

In item 1 there was a significant difference between the students’ and their cooper-ating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimension of ENTP (P = 0.002, <0.05). In this study, 16% of all the participants stated that they belonged to the ENTP

Table 1. Chi-square analysis of cognitive teaching style dimensions of students and their cooperating preschool teachers

Student preschool teachers

Cooperating preschool teachers

Chi-square statistics

Ranking Cognitive teaching style dimensions Frequency % Frequency % χ2 P value

1 ENTP (Extroversion–Intuition–Thinking–Perceiving)

42 18.1 18 12.6 9.600 0.002*

2 ESTP (Extroversion–Sensing–Thinking–Perceiving)

38 16.4 14 9.8 11.077 0.001*

3 ISTP (Introversion–Sensing–Thinking–Perceiving)

22 9.5 16 11.2 0.947 0.330

4 ENFP (Extroversion–Intuition–Feeling–Perceiving)

28 12.1 10 7.0 8.526 0.004*

5 ESFP (Extroversion–Sensing–Feeling–Perceiving)

20 8.6 8 5.6 5.143 0.023*

6 ENFJ (Extroversion–Intuition–Feeling–Judging)

16 6.9 11 7.7 0.926 0.336

7 ISFP (Introversion–Sensing–Feeling–Perceiving)

8 3.4 14 9.8 1.636 0.201

8 ENTJ (Extroversion–Intuition–Thinking–Judging)

6 2.6 13 9.1 2.579 0.108

9 INTP (Introversion–Intuition–Thinking–Perceiving)

8 3.4 11 7.7 0.474 0.491

10 ESTJ (Extroversion–Sensing–Thinking–Judging)

8 3.4 9 6.3 0.059 0.808

11 ESFJ (Extroversion–Sensing–Feeling–Judging)

10 4.3 6 4.2 1.000 0.317

12 INFP (Introversion–Intuition–Feeling–Perceiving)

6 2.6 8 5.6 0.286 0.593

13 INFJ (Introversion–Intuition–Feeling–Judging)

10 4.3 00 00 7.334 0.007*

14 ISFJ (Introversion–Sensing–Feeling–Judging)

6 2.6 3 2.1 1.000 0.317

15 ISTJ (Introversion–Sensing–Thinking–Judging)

4 1.7 00 00 1.800 0.180

16 INTJ (Introversion–Intuition–Thinking–Judging)

00 00 2 1.4 0.333 0.564

Total 143 100 232 100 173.395 0.000*

*P < 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 285

cognitive teaching style dimension, which was ranked first. A total 18.1% of thestudent preschool teachers preferred ‘change agent–analyzer’ of the ENTP teachingstyle while 12.6% of the cooperating teachers preferred ‘change agent–analyzer’dimensions of the ENTP cognitive teaching styles.

In item 2 there was a significant difference between the students’ and cooperatingpreschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimension of ESTP (P = 0.001, < 0.05).ESTP cognitive teaching style dimensions was ranked second since 13.86% of all theparticipants preferred ESTP dimensions. It is clear that there is a 7% differencebetween preservice teachers and their cooperating preschool teachers in ESTP teach-ing dimensions since 16.4% of the preservice and 9.8% of cooperating teacherspreferred the ‘observer’ cognitive teaching dimensions of ESTP.

In item 4 there was a significant difference between the students’ and their cooper-ating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimension of ENFP (P = 0.004, <0.05). A total 12.1% of students and 7.0% of cooperating teachers preferred the‘facilitator–energizer’ cognitive teaching style dimensions of ENFP, which shows thedifference between the subjects.

In item 5 there was a significant difference between the students’ and their cooper-ating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimensions of ESFP (P = 0.023, <0.05). A total 8.6% of student-teachers preferred the ‘supporter and easygoing realist’of ESFP cognitive teaching style dimensions, while only 5.6% of their cooperatingteachers did so.

In item 13 there was a significant difference between the students’ and their coop-erating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimensions of INFJ (P = 0.007, <0.05). In total, 2.67% of all the participants preferred cognitive teaching style dimen-sions of INFJ. While 4.3% of student preschool teachers preferred the ‘influencer–innovator’ cognitive teaching style dimensions of INFJ, none of their cooperatingpreschool teachers preferred it.

Statistically, there appeared a non-significant difference between the students’ andtheir cooperating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimensions of: ISTP(item 3) (P = 0.330, > 0.05); ENFJ (item 6) (P = 0.336, > 0.05) followed by ISFP(item 7) (P = 0.201, > 0.05); ENTJ (item 8) (P = 0.108, > 0.05); INTP (item 9) (P= 0.491, > 0.05); ESTJ (item 10) (P = 0.808, > 0.05); ESFJ (item 11) (P = 0.317, >0.05); INFP (item 12) (P = 0.593, > 0.05); ISFJ (item 14) (P = 0.317, > 0.05); ISTJ(item 15) (P = 0.180, > 0.05); INTJ (item 16) (P = 0.564, > 0.05).

Despite the fact that there was a statistically non-significant difference between thestudents’ and their cooperating preschool teachers’ cognitive teaching style dimen-sions of ISTP, ENFJ, ISFP, ENTJ, INTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, INFP, ISFJ, ISTJ and INTJ,there appeared to be an arithmetical (frequency and percentage) difference betweenthe participants’ cognitive teaching style dimensions in question.

From the chi-square analysis of the data handled (Table 2), in general, one canimmediately conclude that there was a significant difference between preserviceteachers and their cooperating teachers in manipulating cognitive instructional tech-niques in respect of cognitive teaching temperaments (P = 0.000, < 0.05). Keirseyand Bates (1984) defined favored instructional techniques of 16 cognitive teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

286 A. Kabadayi

styles in four categories (Table 2). Each category has its own favored cognitiveinstructional strategies based on student-centered and/or teacher-centered teaching.

As a result of the data analysis, item 2 showed that there was a significant differencebetween preservice and cooperating teachers who belong to the ISTP, ESTP, ISFP,ESFP category in manipulating cognitive instructional techniques in respect ofcognitive teaching temperaments (P = 0.002, < 0.05). Thirty-eight percent of thepreservice teachers preferred communicative activities such as projects, contests, games,demonstrations and shows, while 37% of their cooperating teachers preferred theseactivities, which are totally student-centered.

Item 3 showed that there appeared to be a significant difference between preserviceand cooperating teachers who belong to the INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ENFP category inmanipulating cognitive instructional techniques in respect of cognitive teachingtemperaments (P = 0.001, < 0.05). Twenty-six percent of the preservice teacherspreferred interactionist activities such as group project, interaction, discussion, shows,games and simulations, while 20% of their cooperating teachers preferred these activi-ties, which are also student-centered.

There was a statistically non-significant difference between preservice and cooper-ating teachers who belong to the ISFJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ESTJ category in manipulatingcognitive instructional techniques in item 1 (P = 0.140, > 0.05), followed by item 4including the INTJ, ENTP, INTP and ENTJ category (P = 0.230, > 0.05). Despitethe fact that there existed a statistically non-significant difference between the

Table 2. Chi-square analysis of four temperaments of cognitive teaching style dimensions of preservice teachers and their cooperating preschool teachers

Four teaching temperaments

Preservice teacher

Cooperating teacher

Chi-square statistics

Cognitive instructional techniques

Group Categories Frequency % Frequency % χ2 P valueFavored instructional

techniques

1 ISFJ,ESFJ, ISTJ, ESTJ

28 12 18 13 2.143 0.140 Recitation, drill composition, tests, quizzes, demonstration

2 ISTP,ESTP, ISFP, ESFP

88 38 52 37 9.257 0.002* Projects, contests, games, demonstrations, shows

3 INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ENFP

60 26 29 20 10.798 0.001* Group project interaction, discussion, shows, games, simulations

4 INTJ, ENTP, INTP, ENTJ

56 24 44 30 1.440 0.230 Lectures, tests, compositions, projects, reports

Total 232 100 143 100 47.795 0.000* Eclecticism

*P < 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 287

preservice teachers and their cooperating preschool teachers who belong to ISFJ,ESFJ, ISTJ, ESTJ and INTJ, ENTP, INTP, ENTJ categories in manipulatingcognitive instructional techniques, there appeared an arithmetical (frequency andpercentage) difference between the participants’ cognitive instructional techniques inquestion.

The instructional techniques/activities that two teaching temperaments of fourgroups (ISFJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ESTJ/INTJ, ENTP, INTP, ENTJ) use may tend to bemainly teacher-centered, while the instructional techniques/activities that the others(ISTP, ESTP, ISFP, ESFP/INFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ENFP) use may tend to be mainlystudent-centered in the classroom in general (Kabadayi, 2001).

The data indicate that in this sample there is a mismatch between preservice andcooperating preschool teachers in the cognitive instructional techniques they manip-ulate in classroom (Table. 2). The data show that there seemed to be a difference inmanipulating instructional techniques/activities both between preservice teachers andcooperating teachers and among the four teaching temperaments in respect ofstatistical and arithmetical analysis.

Regarding the preservice and their cooperating teachers manipulating teacher-centered techniques, 36% of cooperating preschool teachers prefer using mainlyteacher-centered instructional techniques while 43% of student preschool teachersprefer using mainly teacher-centered instructional techniques. From a 7% arithmeti-cal difference, one may infer the cognitive teaching style mismatch between preserviceteachers and their cooperating teachers in conducting teacher-centered instructionaltechniques in the classroom.

As for the preservice teachers and their cooperating teachers manipulating student-centered techniques, 64% of cooperating preschool teachers prefer using mainlystudent-centered instructional techniques while 57% of student preschool teachersprefer using mainly student-centered instructional techniques. The statistical resultsalso expose the mismatch between preservice and their cooperating teachers inconducting student-centered instructional techniques in the classroom. The fact thatwillingness of cooperating teachers to interact with children is related to confidencein teaching and experience may be a factor for them to manipulate more student-centered activities than the student-teachers.

In the light of the findings in question, the related literature would support a flexi-ble method of classroom teaching. Furthermore, with the range of scores foundwithin the sample, the cooperating preschool teachers must ensure that the teachingbehaviors exhibited vary, such that all student preschool teachers and their cognitiveteaching styles are included in the lesson.

Discussion and conclusion

It is clear that matching teaching styles to learning styles can significantly enhanceacademic achievement, student-teachers’ attitudes and student behaviors at thepreschool and primary school level (Smith & Renzulli, 1984). It is also emphasizedthat stress, frustration and burnout may occur when preservice preschool teachers are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

288 A. Kabadayi

subjected over extended periods of time to teaching styles inconsistent with theirteaching/learning style preferences (Smith & Renzulli, 1984).

Almost all of the educational psychologists would agree that students learn moreefficiently when information is presented in a variety of modes than when only a singlemode is used. It is also supported that researchers and educators build an eclecticstructure of associations in an attempt to ameliorate the student-teachers’ learning/teaching achievement and/or attitudes by matching the teachers and students’ cogni-tive styles (Saracho, 2003). Therefore, the more the preservice teachers expose theirperception to the teaching modes and cognitive teaching styles presented by theircooperating teachers in the classroom, the easier they practice what they learn and themore successful they are in conducting preschool students (Stice, 1987). What mustbe done to achieve effective preservice teacher supervision is to balance the cooperat-ing teachers’ cognitive teaching styles and instructional methods to their preserviceteachers’ cognitive teaching/learning styles so that all teaching/learning styles aresequentially accommodated. Needless to say, the match of preservice teachers andtheir cooperating teachers’ teaching styles increases positive effects on interpersonalattraction (Mahlios, 1990). In spite of the fact that both the individuals’ personalizedand cognitive qualities provide an effect on the cooperating and their student-teachers’ positive and negative assessments, individuals with the same cognitive styleperceive each other in a highly positive means, in as much as individuals with aconflicting cognitive style view each other in a negative manner (DiStefano, 1970;Greene, 1972; Folman, 1973; Mahlios, 1990). Furthermore, cooperating teachersshould become flexible in implementing different cognitive teaching strategies/activ-ities for the preservice teachers who prefer different cognitive teaching modes thantheir cooperating teachers (Saracho, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003). Saracho (1990)also puts forward the use of ‘identical cognitive style matching’ and ‘performance cognitivestyle matching’ as two prevalent ideals in matching teachers and students in promotingthe educational compatibility of teachers and their students based on their cognitivestyles. Similarly, it can be said that a teacher–student identical match in cognitive styledevelops interpersonal attraction more than does the mismatch in cognitive style. Thefact that there are cognitive teaching style matches between the preservice and theircooperating teachers may increase the pre-service teachers’ performance, which mayhave a direct and positive effect on preschool children’s academic achievements.

The way the cooperating teachers normally teach addresses the needs of some ofthe specified teaching/learning style categories: regular use of at least some of theinstructional methods and techniques given in the following should suffice to coverthe preservice teachers’ various cognitive teaching styles and strategies.

First of all, cooperating teachers should integrate traditional and non-traditionalmethods of teaching. In another words, they are required to balance direct and inter-active methods including recitation, demonstration, backward build-up drill, pair andgroup interactions that are likely to be favorite instructional techniques of ISFJ, ESFJ,ISTJ and ESTJ in the classroom.

Secondly, they are advised to make liberal use of visuals, photographs, drawings,sketches and cartoons to illustrate the story and show films, videotapes and live

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 289

dramatizations to illustrate lessons in plan, which are supposed to be favoriteinstructional techniques of ISTP, ESTP, ISFP and ESFP.

Thirdly, they are required to use humanistic and communicative techniques andactivities such as group work, pair work, games, problem-solving, role-playing, infor-mation gap and simulation, which INFJ, ENFJ, INFP and ENFP may tend to use inclass. They are also advised to assign simple exercises and raise questions and prob-lems to be worked on by students in small groups; enact dialogues and mini-dramas;hold team games and competitions. The idea, however, is not to adopt all thetechniques at once, but rather to pick several that look feasible and try them on anoccasional basis; keep the ones that work, drop the others. and try one or two morelater in the course or in the next course. In this way, a teaching style that is both effec-tive for students and preservice teachers and is comfortable for their cooperatingteachers will evolve naturally, with a potentially dramatic effect on the quality oflearning that subsequently occurs.

Fourthly, they should give students the option of cooperating on at least someprojects and portfolios that INTJ, ENTP, INTJ and ENTJ teachers are likely toprefer. Active preservice teachers generally teach best when they interact with others;if they are denied the opportunity to do so, they are being deprived of their mosteffective teaching tool.

Last, but not least, they are required to use technological devices such as overheadprojectors, tape-recorder, television, video, projector, slides, computer and commu-nicative tools such as flashcards, wall charts, pictures and photographs, which serveboth students and student-teachers preferring different cognitive learning/teachingstyles. In this way, it will probably be possible to integrate various methods andtechniques of traditional or non-traditional, student-centered or teacher-centered,humanistic or mechanic, behaviorist, cognitivist or communicative that both preser-vice and their cooperating preschool teachers have been using separately. Therefore,it will be easier to create a flexible method of teaching those involved in educationwho enjoy the teaching/learning process.

Implications

The implications for the profession are far reaching, yet perplexing. The data in thisstudy suggested that preschool student-teachers and their preschool cooperatingteachers differ in teaching styles, and in their preferred way of teaching. What arepreschool teacher educators doing in preservice programs to be more inclusive of thevarious cognitive teaching styles? If we agree that ‘teachers teach how they learned’,what does it say about teacher educators of preschool teaching? How are preserviceteachers learning?

It is necessary for preschool cooperating teachers to explore the different types ofpreschool student-teachers and to discover cognitive teaching styles associated withthose student-teachers, and help them use an eclectic method of teaching comprisingtraditional and non-traditional teaching strategies. There is also a possibility that thedifference between the cooperating teachers and their student-teachers may be due to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

290 A. Kabadayi

years of experience and the difference between the university curriculum and thesupervised practicum in the preschools. At this point, it is essential that thecooperating teachers transfer their effective and productive teaching experience totheir preschool student-teachers. By collecting data regarding the teaching styles ofpreservice teachers in preschool education, and then using the data to teach aboutthese individual differences, the teaching has meaning to the preschool student-teachers and the learning comes to life in the classroom. If a preservice student’scognitive teaching style is ENTP, and the same student has a preference for the‘change agent–analyzer’ style of teaching, what do these characteristics tell their coop-erating preschool teachers about the teaching techniques and methods preferred bythat student-teacher? What does this information tell preschool cooperating teachersabout the way in which that their preschool student-teachers will want to teach?Preschool education is a female-dominated field. Only in the past five years have anumber of males entered the profession. Do the men that enter preschool educationhave similar learning styles to men in the general population? Is there a consistencybetween the university curriculum and the supervised practicum in the preschools?There is much to learn about preservice student-teachers with regard to learningstyles and teaching styles. More research should be conducted to possess a greaterknowledge about preservice preschool teachers and their cooperating teachers in thiscomplex area of teaching and learning in preschool teaching.

Acknowledgement

This article is supported by scientific research projects of Selcuk University.

References

Altan, M. Z. (1998) Ogrenme bicemleri ve ogrencilerin yabanci dil sınıflarinda daha yetkinkılınmasi [Learning styles and to make the students be more active in foreign language classrooms],Language Journal, 72, 35–43.

Avery, R. E. (1985) An assessment of the relationship between teacher teaching style, student learningstyle and the academic achievement of twelfth grade students. Doctoral dissertation (DAI No. 46/12A), University of Massachusetts.

Boylan, H. (1984) Developmental instruction: what really makes a difference, Research in Develop-mental Education, 1(3), 1–2.

Cano, J. Carton, B. L. & Raven, M. R. (1991) An assessment of selected teacher characteristics ofpre-service teachers of agricultural education, paper presented at the Proceedings of the 45th

Annual Central Research Conference in Agricultural Education, Springfield, IL.Claxton, C. H. & Murrell, P. H. (1987) Learning styles: implications for improving educational

practices. ASHE-ERIC Report No. 4 (Washington, DC: Association for the Study of HigherEducation).

Cooper, S. E. & Miller, J. A. (1991) MBTI learning style-teaching style discongruencies,Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 699–706.

Davis, E. C. (1989) Learning styles and language learning strategies (Ujung Pandang, Indonesia:UNHAS-SIL Cooperative Program).

De Novellis, R. & Lawrence, G. (1983) Correlates of teacher personality variables (Myers–Briggs)and classroom observation data, Research in Psychological Type, 6, 37–46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 291

DiStefano, J. J. (1970) Interpersonal perceptions of field independent and field dependent teachersand students (Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1969), Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 31, 463A–464A.

Dunn, R. (1986) Learning styles: link between individual differences and effective instruction,North Carolina Educational Leadership, 2(1), 4–22.

Dunn, R. S. & Dunn, K. J. (1979) Learning styles/teaching styles: should they … can they … bematched?, Educational Leadership, 36, 238–244.

Ehrman, M. (1988) The role of personality type in adult language learning, in: T. Parry & C.Stansfield (Eds) Language aptitude: past, present and future research (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall).

Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K. (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education,Engineering Education, 78, 674–681.

Folman, R. Z. (1973) Therapist–patient perceptual style, interpersonal attraction, initial interviewbehavior, and premature, Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1746B (UniversityMicrofilms No. 73–23, 482).

Frank, B. M. & Davis, J. K. (1982) Effect of field-independence match or mismatch on a commu-nication task, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 23–31.

Furnham, A. & Stringfield, P. (1993) Personality and occupational behavior: Myers–Briggs TypeIndicator correlates of managerial practices in two cultures. Human Relations, 46(7), 827–848.

Garger, S. & Guild, P. (1984) Learning styles: the crucial differences, Curriculum Review,February, 9–12.

Geer, C. R., Ridley, S. E. & Levy, N. (1991) Validity of the MBTI’s unidimensional and multi-dimensional personality types via a projective test, the Rorschach, Journal of PsychologicalType, 22, 39–47.

Godleski, E. S. (1984) Learning style compatibility of engineering students and faculty, paperpresented at Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia,PA, 362.

Greene, M. A. (1972) Client perception of the relationship as a function of worker–client cognitive,Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 3030A–3031A (University Microfilms No. 72–31, 213).

Gregorc, A. F. (1979a) Learning/teaching styles: potent forces behind them, Educational Leader-ship, 36, 234–237.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979b) Learning/teaching styles: their nature and effects, in J. W. Keefe (Ed.)Student learning styles: diagnosing and prescribing programs (Reston, VA, NASSP).

Guclu, A. (2005) Ogretmenim [Oh my dear teacher]. Available online at: http://www.milliyet.com.tr(accessed 10 September 2005).

Hoffman, J. L. & Betkouski. M. (1981) A summary of Myers–Briggs Type Indicator researchapplications in education, Research in Psychological Type, 3, 81–85. Available online at: http://www.meb.gov.tr index 1024.htm (accessed 22 June 2005).

Hudak, M. A. (1985) Review of learning styles inventory, in: D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland(Eds) Test critiques (vol. II) (Kansas City, MO, Test Corporation of America), 402–410.

Jacobs, R. L. (1990) The social behaviors of field independent and field dependent students in a Personal-ized System of Instruction course. unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University.

Jung, C. (1971,) Psychological types in the collected works of C.G. Jung. Vol. 6, in: R. F. C. Hull(Ed.) (original work published 1921) (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).

Kabadayi, A. K. (2001) Bilissel ogrenim bicemleri ve ogrenci-merkezli bir yabancı dil ogretim modelionerisi [Cognitive learning styles and a suggested learner-centered foreign language teaching].Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Selcuk University, Konya.

Kabadayi, A. K. (2004) Comparison of primary school students’cognitive learning styles in respectof their gender: Konya Case, Journal of Education, Faculty of Ondokuz Mayis University, 18, 1–16.

Keefe, J. W. (1979) Learning styles: an overview, in: J. W. Keefe (Ed.) Student learning styles:diagnosing and prescribing programs (Reston, VA, NASSP).

Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1984) Please understand me (Del Mar, Prometheus Nemesis Books).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

292 A. Kabadayi

Kirby, J. R. (1988) Style, strategy, and skill in reading, in: R. R. Schmeck (Ed.) Learning strategiesand learning styles (New York, Plenum Press), 53–82.

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development(Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).

Koppleman. K. (1980) The relationship of cognitive style to teaching style, paper presented at theMidwest Educational Research Association, Toledo, OH (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 194 609).

Lawrence, G. (1993) People types and tiger stripes: a practical guide to learning styles (3rd edn)(Gainesville, FL, Center for Applications of Psychological Type).

Lawrence, G. D. (1984) A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI, Journal ofPsychological Type, 8, 2–15.

Mahlios, M. C. (1990) The influence of cognitive style on the teaching practices of elementaryteachers, in: O. N. Saracho (Ed.) Cognitive style and early education (New York, Gordon &Breach), 129–147.

Mamchur, C. (1996) A teacher’s guide to cognitive type theory and learning style (Alexandria, VA,ASCD).

McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers–Briggs type indicator from theperspective of the five-factor model of personality, Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.

Moody, R. (1988) Personality preferences and foreign language learning, The Modern LanguageJournal, 72, 389–401.

Myers, I. (1980) Gifts differing (Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press).Myers, I. (1985) Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Palo

Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press).OSYM (2004) 2004 ogrenci secme ve yerlestirme sistemi. Yuksek ogretim programlari ve kontenjanlari

kilavuzu [2004 student selection and placement system. Higher education programs and their quotaguide] (Ankara, Turkey, OSYM).

Oxford, R. (1990) Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know (New York, NewburyHouse).

Oxford, R., Ehrman, M. & Lavine, R. (1991) Style wars: teacher–student style conflicts in thelanguage classroom, in S. Magnan (Ed.) Challenges in the 1990’s for college foreign languageprograms (Boston, MA, Heinle & Heinle).

Oxford, R. L., Holloway, M. E. & Horton-Murillo (1992) Language learning styles and strategiesin the multicultural, tertiary L2 classroom, System, 20(3), 439–459.

Parry, T. (1984) The relationship of selected dimensions of learner cognitive style, aptitude, and generalintelligence factors to selected foreign language proficiency tasks of second year students of Spanish atthe secondary level. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Pask, G. (1988) Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style in: R. R.Schmeck (Ed.) Learning strategies and learning styles (New York, Plenum Press), 83–100.

Reiff, J. (1992) What research says to the teacher: learning styles (Washington, DC, NationalEducation Association).

Sadler-Smith, E. & Riding, R. (1999) Cognitive style and instructional preferences, InstructionalScience, 27, 355–371.

Saracho, O. N. (1990) The match and mismatch of teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles, EarlyChild Development and Care, 54, 99–109.

Saracho, O. N. (1997) Teachers and students’ cognitive styles in early childhood education (Westport,CT, Greenwood Publishing Group).

Saracho, O. N. (1998) Teachers’ perceptions of their matched students, International Journal ofEducational Research, 29(3), 219–225.

Saracho, O. N. (1999) A framework for effective classroom teaching: matching teachers andstudents’ cognitive styles, International Perspectives on Individual Differences, 1, 297–314.

Saracho, O. N. (2001) Cognitive style and kindergarten pupils’ preferences for teachers, Learningand Instruction, 11, 195–209.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Cognitive teaching styles in Turkey 293

Saracho, O. N. (2003) Matching teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles, Early Child Developmentand Care, 173(2–3), 161–173.

Schmeck, R. R. (1988) Learning strategies and learning styles (New York, Plenum Press).Shipman, S. & Shipman, V. C. (1985) Cognitive styles: some conceptual, methodological, and

applied issues, in E. Gorden (Ed.) Review of research in education (Washington, DC, AmericanEducational Research Association), 229–291.

Smith, L. H. & Renzulli, J. S. (1984) Learning style preferences: a practical approach for class-room teachers, Theory into Practice, 23, 44–50.

Stice, J. E. (1987) Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning, Engineering Education,77, 291–296.

Sugarman, L. (1985) Kolb’s model of experiential learning: touchstone for trainers, students,counselors, and clients, Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 264–268.

Tzeng, O. C., Ware, R. & Bharadwaj, N. (1991) Comparison between continuous bipolar andunipolar ratings of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Educational and Psychological Measurement,51(3), 681–690.

Uhl, N. & Day, D. (1993). A cross cultural comparison of the MBTI factor structures, Journal ofPsychological Type, 27, 3–10.

Whitman, N. A., Spendlove, D. C. & Clark, C. H. (1986) Increasing students learning. ASHE-ERICReport No. 4 (Washington, DC, Association for the Study of Higher Education).

Witkin, D. B. (1973) The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher student relations(research bulletin) (Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service), 73–101.

Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981) Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence andfield independence (New York, International Universities Press).

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. & Cox, P. W. (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications, Review of EducationalResearch, 47(1), 1–64.

YOK (1998) Egitim fakultesi ogretmen yetistirme lisans programlari [Undergraduate teacher educationprograms of the faculties of education] (Ankara, YOK).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

9:20

11

Oct

ober

201

4