SINIF VE İLKÖĞRETİM MATEMATİK ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ELEŞTİREL DÜŞÜNME EĞİLİM DÜZEYLERİNİN BAZI DEĞİŞKENLERE GÖRE İNCELENMESİ

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sınıf ve ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeylerini, eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeylerine cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyi değişkenlerinin etkisini belirlemektir. Çalışmada kesitsel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, 2014-2015 eğitim-öğretim yılının güz yarıyılında Balıkesir Üniversitesi Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi'nde öğrenim gören 549 öğretmen adayıyla yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının 240'ı sınıf öğretmenliğinde, 309'u ise ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliğinde öğrenim görmektedir. Veri toplama aracı olarak Demografik Bilgi Formu ve Facione, Facione ve Giancarlo (1998) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan, Kökdemir (2003) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan Kaliforniya Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeği (CCTDI-T) kullanılmıştır. Veriler, SPSS 20.0 paket programı kullanılarak çözümlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının genel eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeylerinin ortalamanın biraz üstünde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Cinsiyetin değişkeninin genel eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeyleri üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin alt boyutlarında cinsiyet değişkeninin etkisi incelendiğinde analitiklik, açık fikirlilik ve doğruyu arama boyutlarının kadın öğretmen adaylarının lehine, meraklılık boyutununsa erkek öğretmen adaylarınn lehine anlamlı farklılık oluşturduğu görülmüştür. Sistematiklik ve kendine güven alt boyutlarında cinsiyet değişkeni anlamlı farklılık oluşturmamıştır. Ölçeğin genelinden alınan puanlara bakıldığında sınıf düzeyine göre eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeyleri arasında anlamlı farklılık belirlenmiştir. Anlamlı farklılık 3. ve 4. sınıflara göre 1. ve 2.sınıflar lehine olmuştur. Analitiklik, açık fikirlilik ve sistematiklik alt boyutlarında sınıf düzeyi anlamlı farklılık oluşturmuş anlamlı farklılık 1.sınıflar lehine olmuştur. Diğer alt boyutlarda sınıf düzeyi anlamlı fark oluşturmamıştır. Her iki öğretmen adayı grubu da matematik öğretimi yapacağından, eleştirel düşünmeyle matematik öğretimi arasında ilişki de kurularak elde edilen sonuçlar tartışılmıştır

INVESTIGATION OF CRITICAL THINKING TENDENCY LEVELS OF CLASSROOM AND ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS TEACHER CANDIDATES IN TERMS OF SOME VARIABLES

The aim of this study is to determine the critical thinking tendency levels of the classroom and elementary mathematics teacher candidates, and the effect of gender and class level variables on the levels of critical thinking. Cross-sectional model was used. The study was conducted with 549 teacher candidates studying at Balıkesir University Necatibey Education Faculty in the fall semester of 2014-2015 academic year. 240 of the teacher candidates participating in the study are taught in classroom education and 309 are taught in elementary mathematics education. As data collection tool, the California Critical Thinking Tendency Scale (CCTDI-T) developed by Demographic Information Form and Facione, Facione and Giancarlo (1998), and adopted to Turkish by Kökdemir (2003) was used. The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 software. According to the results of the study, it was found that general critical thinking tendencies of the teacher candidates participating in the study were slightly above the average level. The gender variable was found to have no significant effect on the general level of critical thinking. When the effect of the gender variable in the subscales was analyzed, analyticity, open-mindedness and truth-seeking dimensions were found to be significantly higher in female teacher candidates, whereas inquistiveness dimension was statistically significant in the male teacher candidates. In systematicity and self-confidence sub-dimensions, gender was not significant. When we look at scores from the overall scale, there was a significant difference between grades in terms of the critical thinking tendency levels. 1st and 2nd graders had significantly higher scores than 3rd and 4th grades. In the analytical, open-mindedness and systematicity sub-dimensions, a significant difference was found among grades, and the difference was in favor of the 1st graders. In the other sub-dimensions, the grade level did not make any significant difference. As both groups of teachers will teach mathematics, by establishing relationship between critical thinking and mathematics teaching, the results were discussed.The aim of this study is to determine the critical thinking tendencies of the preservice primary school and elementary mathematics teachers. The effects of gender and grade on the critical thinking tendencies of teacher candidates were investigated. The study was carried out with 549 preservice teachers studying at Balikesir University, the Faculty of Education in the fall semester of 2014-2015 academic year. 240 of the teacher candidates participating in the study were taught in primary school teaching while 309 were in elementary mathematics teaching. Cross-sectional survey model was used in the study. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) developed by Demographic Information Form and Facione, Facione and Giancarlo (1998), and adopted to Turkish by Kökdemir (2003) was used as data collection tool. In data analysis, descriptive statistics including mean, percentage and standard deviation were used. Independent sample T-test was used to investigate whether gender had a significant effect on the scores obtained from the general and subscales of the inventory. Oneway ANOVA test was used to examine whether grade affected the critical thinking tendencies. Before using one-way ANOVA, whether the data showed a normal distribution was checked. Values of skewness and kurtosis were taken into account to check whether the data were normally distributed. It was found that the data showed normal distribution. Tukey test was used to determine the source of the difference in the case of significant differences was observed in ANOVA analysis. When the results obtained from tukey analysis was significant, the value of the chi square (η2) was used to determine the effect of the grade variable. The findings were evaluated in 95% confidence interval and 5% significance level. SPSS version 20.0 software was used for the analysis of the data. The findings of the data demonstrated that the critical thinking tendencies of preservice primary school and elementary mathematics teachers were high. However, this level was closer to the average. There are similar studies in the literature which reported average critical thinking tendencies for university students and preservice teachers (Bayrak, 2014; Beşoluk & Önder, 2010; Kartal, 2012; Koçak et al., 2015). A tendency to think critically at a little higher than average level may not be sufficient to achieve the program goals of mathematics teaching. As Gupta (2005) notes, this situation highlights the inadequate critical thinking teaching and learning during university education. Although the level of critical thinking tendency of teacher candidates is a little higher than average, this situation might be due to the influence of education prior to university. In other words, the critical thinking tendency of preservice teachers, who had a high level at the beginning of their university education was not developed yet gradually decreased to average. Preservice teachers will be expected to improve their students’ critical thinking skills. Yet, as future teachers, they first need to have a high level of critical thinking skills so that they can assist to the education of learners targeted by renewed primary and secondary school mathematics teaching programs. In the study, the subscales of the critical thinking tendency inventory were also examined. The participants had the highest score in open-mindedness subscale, while they had the lowest score in systematicity subscale. The fact that the elementary preservice mathematics teachers had the highest scores in open mindedness subscale shows that they are innovative, open to new ideas and can think flexibly. Additionally, the fact that the highest average score was in the open-mindedness subscale can be interpreted as the teacher candidates are enthusiastic about developing their critical thinking levels which are above the average. In the study, the lowest mean scores were in systematicity subscale. This may indicate that preservice teachers lacks in planning and organizing research. The second highest scores were in the analyticity subscale. Analytical thinking is important and necessary for both mathematical thinking and critical thinking. It was also found that the gender variable did not significantly differ in terms of critical thinking tendencies. This result is in parallel with many studies (Bayrak, 2014; Bozpolat, 2010, Ekinci & Aybek, 2010; Leach & Good, 2011; Myers & Dyer, 2002). Regarding gender, different results have been observed in different studies. There were no significant differences in the level of critical thinking between male and female teacher candidates, which is similar to the majority of studies on critical thinking. It can be said that the activities to develop critical thinking can be applied regardless of gender. It was also examined whether the gender caused a significant difference between the scores obtained from the subscales. The results demonstrated that there was a significant difference between mean scores of female and male preservice teachers in the subscale of inquistiveness which favoring males and the mean scores of male preservice teachers were higher than that of females. In the analyticity, open-mindedness and inquistiveness subscales, there was a statistically significant difference in gender variable favoring female teacher candidates. When various studies on critical thinking were examined, it was seen that the results were similar. McBridge, Xiang and Wittenburg (2007) found significant differences in open-mindedness and inquistiveness, Genç (2008) observed differences in open-mindedness and inquistiveness, and Semerci (2010) found differences in analyticity open-mindedness and inquisitiveness, which was in favor of females. When the effect of gender on the subscales was taken into consideration as a whole, it was found that the results differed in truth-seeking and inquisitiveness; however female teachers had higher scores in analyticity and open-mindedness. The results also showed that there was no significant difference between the mean scores of preservice teachers’ critical thinking tendency regarding their grade levels. The mean scores of the critical thinking tendency according to grades showed a gradual decrease from 1st to 4th grades. Significant differences were found between 1-3 and 1-4 classes, favoring first grades. In addition, significant differences were discovered between 2-3 and 2-4 grades, favoring second grades. This result were in parallel with the studies of Gülveren (2007) and Akar (2007), and quite similar to Koçak et al. (2015). Although the tendency of critical thinking was found to be the highest at the first grades, this level of tendency was slightly higher than the average level. The classes that the preservice mathematics teachers take during university education do not support their high-level critical thinking development. University education is an important stage for critical thinking. As the mainstream courses are mostly emphasized at the first grade, the critical thinking levels mostly develop at this grade (Cross & Steadman, 1996). However, such a development was not observed for teacher candidates in this study. Another reason may be the teaching styles of academicians in universities. According to Tobias (1992) and Tsui (1999), teachers should use learning and teaching strategies that focus on the cognitive development of learners. These strategies should be in combination with content and understandable for the learners. Additionally, they should be enhance student-student interaction and focus on structuring students' learning rather than memorizing. An education based on recalling and memorizing may not have provided sufficient development of critical thinking as seen in this study. The level of critical thinking, which is higher than the average at the first graders, gradually decreased towards the fourth class. Classes not adequately including complex problem solving situations, teaching styles that require low-level thinking and memorizing and the use of multiple choice questions can be seen as an impediment to the development of critical thinking (Halpern, 1999; King, 1995; Pinet, 1999). However, emphasis should be placed on methods related to real life and problem solving instead of memorizing and remembrance for the development of critical thinking in mathematics teaching (Hammerman & Goldberg, 2003; Hosseinpour, 2006; Paul, 2004). As a result, education faculties should support, develop and maintain critical thinking skills of preservice teachers. Relations between high-level thinking skills and mathematics teaching should be well structured in all levels of education, especially during university education. Activities that promote high-level thinking skills should be included in mathematics teaching and in other teaching courses during university education. The reasons for the tendency of teacher candidates to think critically, usually at an average level and slightly above, should be questioned.

___

  • Akar, Ü. (2007). Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri ve Eleştirel Düşünme Beceri Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişki. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Afyon.
  • Ay, Ş., & Akgöl, H. (2008). Eleştirel düşünme gücü ile cinsiyet, yaş ve sınıf düzeyi. Kuramsal Eğitim ve bilim, 1(2), 65-75.
  • Bayrak, B.K. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgi okuryazarlık düzeyleri ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri üzerine bir araştırma. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 25(1), 439- 456.
  • Beekman, L. (2000). Problem-solving and Decision-making Strategies and Skills: A Co curriculum, Teaching Thinking Skills for Nursing Students. Van Schaik.
  • Beşoluk, Ş., & Önder, İ. (2010). Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Yaklaşımları, Öğrenme Stilleri ve Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9 (2), 679-693.
  • Bozpolat, E. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının okuma alışkanlığına ilişkin tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi (Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi örneği). Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 2(1), 411-428.
  • Bransky, J., & Hadass, R. (2002). Reasoning fallacies in preservice elementary school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(1), 83-92.
  • Brownell, G., & Jadallah, E. (1993). Formal reasoning ability in preservice elementary educational students: Matched to the technology education task at hand? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 439-446.
  • Butera, G., Friesen, A., Palmer, S.B., Lieber, J., & Horn, E. (2014, March). Integrating mathematics problem solving and critical thinking into the curriculum, YC Young Children, 69(1), 70-77.
  • Çetin, A. (2008). Sınıf öğretmeni adayların eleştirel düşünme gücü. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
  • Clements, H., Baroody, A. & Sarama, J. (2013). Math in the early years. Education Commission of the States, 14(5), 1-17.,
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  • Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Çetinkaya, Z. (2011). Türkçe öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünmeye ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 93-108.
  • Çubukcu, Z. (2006). Türk Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 (4), 22-36.
  • Dutoğlu, G. ve Tuncel, M. (2008). Aday öğretmenlerin eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ile duygusal zekâ düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 11-32.
  • Ekinci, Ö.,& Aybek, B. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının empatik ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 816-827.
  • Ennis, R. H. (1986). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In R. J. Sternberg & J. B. Baron (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
  • Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32, 179-186.
  • Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. (ED 315423).
  • Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (2007). Talking critical thinking. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(2), 38-45.
  • Facione, P. A, Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1998). The california critical thinking disposition inventory test manual (revised). Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
  • Facione, P.A., Giancarlo, C.A., Facione, N.C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.
  • Genç, S.Z. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 8 (1), 89-116.
  • Gülveren, H. (2007). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Becerileri Ve Bu Becerileri Etkileyen Eleştirel Düşünme Faktörleri. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İzmir.
  • Gupta, G. (Jan/Feb2005). Improving Students' Critical-Thinking, Logic, and Problem-Solving Skills. Journal of College Science Teaching., 34(4), 48.
  • Güven, M.,& Kürüm, D. (2007). Öğretmen Adaylarının Sahip Oldukları Öğrenme Stilleri ve Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (21), 60-90.
  • Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions For Teaching And Learning, 80, 69-74.
  • Hammerman, N. & Goldberg, R. (2003). Strategies for developmental mathematics at the college level. Mathematics and Computer Education, 37, 79-95.
  • Hart, L. C., Oesterle, S., & Swars, S. L. (2013). The juxtaposition of instructor and student perspectives on mathematicscourses for elementary teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(3), 429-451.
  • Hosseinpour, M. (2006). Comprehension monitoring: An aid to remedial/developmental Mathematics problem solving. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).Dissertations Abstracts International, 68(01).
  • Jansen, A., & Bartell, T. (2013). Caring mathematics instruction: Middle school students' and teachers' perspectives. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1), 33.
  • Jensen, J. L. (2013). Students as mathematics consultants. Mathematics Teacher, 106(8), 608-613.
  • Jungwirth, E. (1994). Science teachers as uncritical consumers of invalid conclusions: Incompetence or just poor performance. In annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, CA.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (Third Edition). New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Kartal, T. (2012). İlköğretim Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13 (2), 279-297.
  • King, A. (1995). Inquiring minds really do want to know: Using questioning to teach critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1),13-17.
  • King, P. M., Wood, P. K., & Mines, R. A. (1990).Critical thinking among college and graduate students. Review of Higher Education, 13, 167–186.
  • Koç, I., & Kuvaç, M. (2014). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri: İstanbul Üniversitesi Örneği. Turkish Journal of Education,3(2).
  • Koçak, B., Kurtlu, Y., Ulaş, H., & Epçaçan, C. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenleri adaylarının eleştirel düşünme düzeyleri ve okumaya yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişki. Ekev Akademi Dergisi,19(61), 211-228.
  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2009). Öğretmenlerin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilim ve Düzeyleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10 (1), 1-13.
  • Korkmaz, Ö., & Yeşil, R. (2009). Öğretim kademelerine göre öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme düzeyleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2),19-28.
  • Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik durumlarında karar verme ve problem çözme. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Küçük, D. P., & Uzun, Y. B. (2013). Müzik öğretmeni adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 327-345.
  • Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Pearson's Research Reports, 6, 40-41.
  • Laughbaum, E.D. (2001). Teaching in context: Enhancing the processes of teaching and learning in community college mathematics. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 383-390.
  • Lawson, A. E. (1993). At what levels of education is the teaching of thinking effective? Theory into Practice, 32(3), 170-178.
  • Leach, B.T. & Good, D.W. (2011). Critical thinking skills as related to university students’ gender and academic discipline, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(21), 100-106.
  • Marcut, I. (2005). Critical thinking applied to the methodology of teaching mathematics. Educatia Matematica, 1(1), 57-66.
  • McBride, R. E., Xiang, P., & Wittenburg, D. (2002). Dispositions toward critical thinking: The preservice teacher's perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 8(1), 29-40
  • MEB (2013). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Ortaokul Matematik Dersi (5. 6. 7. ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim programlari/icerik/151 adresinden 10 Haziran 2014 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
  • Murphy, M.M., Sullivan, M., Chaillou, A.L., & Ross, K. (2011). Measuring up: What teachers know about mathematics. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37(2), 36.
  • Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). The influence of student learning style on critical thinking skill. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 43.
  • Narin, N., & Aybek, B. (2010). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Becerilerinin İncelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(1), 336-350.
  • Özcan, G. (2007). Problem çözme yönteminin eleştirel düşünme ve erişiye etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
  • Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to using SPSS for windows (version 12). New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
  • Palinussa, A.L. (2013). Students’ critical mathematical thinking skills and character: Experiments for junior high school students through realistic mathematics education culture-based. Journal on Mathematics Education, 4(1), 75-94.
  • Paul,R. (2004). The state of critical thinking today. 15.06. 2007 tarihinde http://www.criticalthinking.org/professionalDev/the-state-of-today.cfm adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your Professional and personal life. New Jersey: FT Press.
  • Paul, R. W., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: Learn the tools the best thinkers use (Con.ed.). Pearson, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Paul, R. W, Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation guide for instruction in critical thinking: Research findings and policy recommendations. State of California: California Commission on Teachers Credentialing.
  • Pinet, P. R. (1992). A primer on teaching higher-order thinking in introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 40, 293-301.
  • Ricket, J., & Rudd, R. (2004). Critical Thinking Skills of FFA Leaders. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research. 54(1), 7-20.
  • Ruff, L.G. (2005). The development of critical thinking skills and dispositions in firstyear college students: Infusing critical thinking instruction into a first-year transitions course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland – College Park, 2005). Dissertations Abstracts International, 66(12).
  • Saçlı, F.,& Demirhan, G. (2008). Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme düzeylerinin saptanması ve karşılaştırılması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 19 (2), 92-110.
  • Semerci, N. (2010). Critacal thinking tendencies of the student- teachers who attend to the universities of the eastern anatolia region in turkey. Jornal Of New World Sciences Academy, 5 (3), 858-867.
  • Serin, O. (2013). The critical thinking skills of teacher candidates Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus sampling. Educational Research, 53, 231-248.
  • Smith, K., & Geller, C. (2004). Essential principles and practices of effective mathematics instruction: Methods to reach all students. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 22-29.
  • Sümbüloğlu, K., & Sümbüloğlu, V. (1993). Biyoistatistik, 4. baskı, Ankara: Özdemir Yayıncılık
  • Şenlik, N. Z., Balkan, Ö., ve Aycan, Ş. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme becerileri: Muğla üniversitesi örneği. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 67-76.
  • Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu (TTKB). (2005). İlköğretim 1–5. Sınıf programları tanıtım el kitabı. Ankara: TC MEB Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Baskanlıgı.
  • Tapper, J. (2004). Student perceptions of how critical thinking is embedded in a degree program. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(2),199-222.
  • Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don't. An Occasional Paper on Neglected Problems in Science Education. Research Corporation, Book Dept., 6840 East Broadway Boulevard, Tucson, AZ 85710-2815.
  • Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in higher education, 40(2), 185-200.
  • Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763.
  • Turan, H., Kolayiş, H., & Ulusoy, Y. O. (2012). Comparison of the Faculty of Education Students’ Critical Thinking Disposition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2020-2024.
  • Tümkaya, S. (2011). Fen Bilimleri Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri ve Öğrenme Stillerinin İncelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (3), 215-234.
  • Tümkaya, S., Aybek, B., & Aldağ, H. (2009). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri ve Problem Çözme Becerilerinin İncelenmesi. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 36, 37-74.
  • Türnüklü, E. B. ve Yeşildere, S. (2005). Türkiye’den Bir Profil: 11-13 Yaş Grubu Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilim ve Becerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38 (2), 167-185.
  • Visser, P.,Krosnick, J.A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000).Survey Research. In Visser, Penny S.; Krosnick, Jon A.; Lavrakas, Paul J. Reis, Harry T. (Ed); Judd, Charles M. (Ed), (2000). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. , (pp. 223-252). New York, NY, US:Cambridge University Press
  • Walser, N. (2008). Teaching 21st century skills. Harvard Education Letter, 24(5), 1-3.
  • Warnick, B., & Inch, E. (2009). Critical thinking and communication. New York: Macmillan.
  • Whittaker, J. V. (2014). Good Thinking!: Fostering Children's Reasoning and Problem Solving. YC Young Children, 69(3),80.
  • Wood, R. (2002). Critical thinking. 10 Ekim 2011 tarihinde http://www.robinwood.com /Democracy / GeneralEssays / CriticalThinking adresinden alınmıştır.
  • Yenice, N. (2011). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ critical thinking dispositions and problem solving skills in terms of different variables.Educational Research and Reviews, 6(6), 497-508.
  • Yüksel, N. Z., Uzun, M. S., & Dost, Ş. (2013). Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 393-403
  • Zayif, K. (2008). Öğretmen Adaylarının Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Bolu.
  • Zohar, A., & Schwartzer, N. (2005). Assessing teachers' pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching higher-order thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1595- 1620.