___

• Byrne, J. (2011). Models of Micro‐Organisms: Children’s knowledge and understanding of micro‐organisms from 7 to 14 years old. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 1927-1961.
• Chan, D. W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 35-44.
• Cooper, C. R., Baum, S. M., & Neu, T. W. (2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs: An alternative model for identification, curriculum, and assessment. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 162-169.
• Duffy, A.M. (2006). Student’s ways of understanding aromaticity and electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions. Doktora tezi: San Dıego State University, California.
• Glesne, C. (2013). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (Çev. Ed. A. Ersoy ve P. Yalçınoğlu).(3. Basım). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional children, 63(3), 295-312.
• Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proofschemes: results from exploratory studies. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234-283.
• Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, E. Hamilton (Eds), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 263-280), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Harel, G. (2008a). DNR Perspective on MathematicsCurriculum and Instruction: Focus on Proving, Part I, ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 487-500.
• Harel, G. (2008b). DNR Perspective on Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction, Part II, ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education.
• Johnsen, S. K. & Kendrick, J. (2005). Science education for gifted students. Prufrock Press Inc..
• Jones, M. G. & Rua, M. J. (2008). Conceptual representations of flu and microbial illness held by students, teachers, and medical professionals. School Science and Mathematics, 108(6), 263-278. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17836.x/full (Erişim tarihi: 03.08.2016).
• Kim, Y., Seo, J. H., Kim, J. M. & Lee, W. G. (2007). Suggestions for effective teaching methods through analysis of the learning and thinking styles of gifted IT students. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 11(4), 228-237.
• Kim, S. H. & Song, K. S. (2013). The effects of thinking style based cooperative learning on group creativity. Creative Education, 3(08), 20.
• Kurt, H. (2013). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının “bağışıklık” konusundaki bilişsel yapıları. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 242-264.
• Li, A. K. & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students' preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic?. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 46-54.
• Maskiewicz, A. L. (2006). Rethinking bıology instruction: the application of DNR-based instruction to the learning and teaching bıology. Doktora tezi, San Dıego State University.
• Meador, S.K. (2005). Thinking creatively about science. In S. K. Johnsen and J. kendrick (Eds.), Science education for gifted students (pp. 13-22). USA: Prufrock Press.
• Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskıdan Çeviri, Çeviri Editörü: S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Mosothwane, M. (2009). A study of science teacher trainees’ conceptualization of immunological processes. International Journal of Educational Policies, 3(1), 67-80.
• Ngoi, M. & Vondracek, M. (2004). Working with gifted science students in a public high school environment: one school's approach. Prufrock Journal, 15(4), 141-147.
• Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, C. & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-based learning styles of identified gifted and nongifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 183-189.
• Park, S. K., Park, K. H. & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. Prufrock Journal, 16(2-3), 87-97.
• Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (4), 308-317.
• Roberts, R. ( 2001). Procedural understanding in biology: the thinking behind the doing. Journal of Biological Education,35(3).
• Simonneaux, L. (2000). A study of pupils' conceptions and reasoning in connection with'microbes', as a contribution to research in biotechnology education. International journal of science education, 22(6), 619-644.
• Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675.
• Stott, A. & Hobden, A.P. (2016). Effective learning: A case study of the learning strategies used by a high gifted achiever in learning science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1) 63–74.
• Ursavaş, N. (2014). EGS (DNR) tabanlı öğretim yönergesi kullanılarak öğretmen adaylarının sahip oldukları biyolojik anlam şekilleri ve düşünme yollarının geliştirilmesi. Doktora tezi: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.
• Yamahara, H., Takada, H. & Shimakawa, H. (2007). An individual behavioral pattern to provide ubiquitous service in intelligent space. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 6(3), 562-569.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5. Baskı). Londra: Sage publications.
• Watters, J. & Diezmann, C.M. (2003). The gifted students in science: fulfilling potential. Australian Science TeachersJournal, 49(3), 46-53.
• Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 52-56.