GELİŞME VE KİŞİLİK BİLİMSEL DÜŞÜNCE, İLGİ VE BAŞARIYI NASIL ETKİLER?

Year 2016, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 243 - 264, 15.06.2016

Güner Kutal Feyzullah Şahin

Abstract

Bu makalede psikoloji biliminin iki alt-bilim dalını, yani, gelişim ve kişiliği gözden geçiriyorum ve özetliyorum. İlk bölümde gelişim psikolojisi bilimiyle ilgili üç temel gelişim konusunu inceliyorum: 1) bilimsel ilgi ve bilimsel yeteneğin arkasındaki gelişimsel ve ailesel etkiler üzerine olan literatür; 2) cinsiyet, ilgi ve bilimsel yetenek; ve son olarak, 3) yaş ve bilimsel ilgi ve üretkenlik. İkinci bölümde, kişilik psikolojisi bilimiyle alakalı olarak, incelemeyi dört temel başlıkta organize ediyorum: 1) genel olarak hangi özellikler bilimsel ilgiyi daha muhtemel hal e getirir; 2) hangi özellikler spesifik bilim sahalarında (özellikle sosyal bilimler ve fen bilimleri) ilgiyi daha muhtemel hale getirir; 3) hangi özellikler farklı teorik oryantasyonları daha muhtemel kılar; ve son olarak, 4) hangi özellikler bilimsel başarı ve y ar atıcılığı daha mümkün kılar. İncelenen deneysel kanıtlardan, gelişimsel ve kişilik faktörlerinin doğrudan veya dolaylı olarak bilimsel düşünceyi, ilgiyi ve başarıyı etkilediği oldukça açıktır.  

Keywords

psikoloji bilimi, gelişme, kişilik, matematik, yetenek

References

• Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview.
• Arthur, A. R. (2001). Personality, epistemology and psychotherapists’ choice of theoretical model: A review and analysis. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counseling and Health, 4, 45– 64.
• Atwood, G. E., & Tomkins, S. S. (1976). On subjec- tivity of personality theory. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 12, 166 –177.
• Bachtold, L. M., & Werner, E. E. (1972). Personality characteristics of women scientists. Psychological Reports, 31, 391–396.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Baron-Cohen, S. Bolton, P., Wheelwright, S., Short, L., Mead, G., Smith, A., & Scahill, V. (1998). Autism occurs more often in families of physicists, engineers, and mathematicians. Autism, 2, 296 – 301.
• Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Mar- tin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spec- trum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 31, 5–17.
• Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stone, V., & Rutherford, M. (1999). A mathematician, a physicist, and a computer scientist with Asperger syndrome: Performance on folk psychology and folk physics tests. Neurocase, 5, 475– 483.
• Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Stott, C., Bolton, P., & Goodyer, I. (1997). Is there a link between engineering and autism? Autism, 1, 101–109.
• Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1977). Career age and research–professional activities of academic scientists: Tests of alternative non-linear models and some implications for higher education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 259 – 822.
• Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented. Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biologi- cal basis. In G. R. Bock and K. Ackrill (Eds.). The origins and development of high ability (pp. 44 – 66). Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
• Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. E. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13. Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–480.
• Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029 – 1031.
• Berger, J. (1994). The young scientists: America’s future and the winning of the Westinghouse. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Block, J. (1977). Recognizing the coherence in personality. In D. Magnusson & N. D. Endler (Eds.). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum & Associates.
• Brody, N., & Ehrlichman, H. (1998). Personality psychology: The science of individuality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Busse, T. V.& Mansfield, R. S. (1984). Selected personality traits and achievement in male scien- tists. The Journal of Psychology, 116, 117–131.
• Camarota, D. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of America’s foreign-born population in 2005. Retrieved on March 23, 2006, from http:// www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.pdf.
• Cameron, P. A., Mills, C. J., & Heinzen, T. E. (1995). The social context and developmental patterns of crystallizing experiences among academically tal- ented youth. Roeper Review, 17, 197–200.
• Chambers, J. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78, 1–20.
• Chan, L. K. S. (1996). Motivational orientations and metacognitive abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 184 –193.
• Cole, J. R. (1987). Women in science. In D. Jackson & P. J. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence (pp. 359 –375). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Cole, J. R., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119 –125.
• Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958 –977.
• Conway, J. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists: Scientists, practitioners, and science-practitioners. Professional Psychology: Re- search and Practice, 19, 642– 655.
• Costa, P., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: A reply to Block. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216 –220.
• Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390 – 400.
• Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258 –261.
• Davids, A. (1968). Psychological characteristics of high school male and female potential scientists in comparison with academic underachievers. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 79 – 87.
• Dennis, W. (1956). Age and productivity among scientists. Science, 123, 724 –725.
• Dennis, W. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 21, 1– 8.
• Despete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in Grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 435– 449.
• Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research pro- ductivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 520 –525.
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417– 440.
• Eccles, J. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.
• Eiduson, B. T. (1962). Scientists: Their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.
• Ekman, P. (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.). Approaches to emotion, (pp. 319 –344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 244 –276). New York: Guilford.
• Eysenck, M. W., Mogg, K., May, J., Richards, A., & Mathews, A. (1991). Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 144 –150.
• Farmer, H. S., Wardrop, J. L., & Rotella, S. C. (1999). Antecedent factors differentiating women and men in science/non-science careers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 763–780.
• Feist, G. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366 –371.
• Feist, G. J. (1997). Quantity, impact, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important? Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.
• Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2, 290 –309.
• Feist, G. J. (1999). Personality in scientific and artistic creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Human Creativity. (pp 273–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University
• Feist, G. J. (in press). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development.
• Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting cre- ativity from early to late adulthood: Intellect, potential and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 62– 88.
• Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). Psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2, 3– 47.
• Feist, G. J., Paletz, S., & Weitzer, W. (2005). Predicting scientific interest in college students: The effects of quantitative skills, gender, self-image, and personality. Manuscript in preparation.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906 –911.
• Fox Keller, E. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Freeman, C. (1999). The crystallizing experience: A study in musical precocity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 75– 85.
• Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39.
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. NewYork: Basic Books.
• Garwood, D. S. (1964). Personality factors related to creativity in young scientists. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 413– 419.
• Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability and metacognition. Educational Research, 42, 119 –139.
• Gerbing, D. W., & Tuley, M. R. (1991). The 16PF related to the Five-Factor Model in personality: Multiple-indicator measurement versus the a priori scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 271–289.
• Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1057–1073.
• Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P-E-N model. In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martion (Eds.). The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Gough, H. G. (1961, February). A personality sketch of the creative research scientist. Paper presented at 5th Annual Conference on Personnel and Indus- trial Relations Research, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
• Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1995). [ACL, CPI, and the Big Five Dimensions]. Unpublished raw data. Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hart, J. J. (1982). Psychology of the scientists: XLVI: Correlation between theoretical orientation in psychology and personality type. Psychological Reports, 50, 795– 801.
• Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896 –908.
• Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Pred, R. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 495– 504.
• Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210 –220.
• Helson, R., & Crutchfield, R. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250 –257.
• Helson, R., & Pals, J. (2000). Creative potential, creative achievement, and personal growth. Journal of Personality, 68, 1–27.
• Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices (2nd edition). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Horner, K. L., Rushton, J. P., & Vernon, P. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 4, 319–24.
• Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L. A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299 –324.
• Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.
• Jacobwitz, T. (1983). Relationship of sex, achievement, and science self-concept to the science career preferences of Black students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 621– 628.
• John, O. P. (1990). The “Big-Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66 – 100). New York: Guilford.
• Johnson, J. A., Germer, C. K., Efran, J. S., & Over- ton, W. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 824 – 835.
• Kahn, J. H., & Scott, N. A. (1997). Predictors of research productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology doctoral students. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 38 – 67.
• Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situa- tion debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.
• Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 964, 674 – 689.
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74 –103.
• Kuhn, D., E. Amsel, & M. O’Loughlin. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. Orlando FL: Academic.
• Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1, 113–129.
• Lehman, H. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Lehman, H. C. (1966). The psychologist’s most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.
• Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 996 –1009.
• Long, J. S. (Ed.) (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Mallinckrodt, B., Gelso, C. J., & Royalty, G. M. (1990). Impact of the research training environment and counseling psychology students’ Holland personality type on interest in Research Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 26 –32.
• McCrae, R. R. (1991). The Five-Factor Model and its assessment in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 399 – 414.
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.
• McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-sets and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430 – 446.
• McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concepts, natural language, and psychological constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 61, 1–26.
• McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
• Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: The Cognitive-Affective Personality System. In L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 197–218). New York: Guilford Press.
• National Science Foundation (1999). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 1998 (NSF 99 – 87.) Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
• Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social adjustment. New York: Prentice-Hall.
• Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math male, me female, therefore mathme. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44 –59.
• O’Brien, V., Martinez-Pons, M., & Kopala, M. (1999). Mathematics self-efficacy, ethnic identity, gender, and career interests related to mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 231–235.
• Over, R. (1982). Is age a good predictor of research productivity? Australian Psychologist, 17, 129 –139.
• Over, R. (1989). Age and scholarly impact. Psychology and Aging, 4, 222–225.
• Parloff, M. B., & Datta, L. (1965). Personality characteristics of the potentially creative scientist. Science and Psychoanalysis, 8, 91–105.
• Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s concept of number. NewYork: Norton.
• Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12.
• Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective check list scales and the Five- Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630 – 637.
• Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interest and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21, 259 –287.
• Reis, S. M., & Park, S. (2001). Gender differences in high-achieving students in math and science. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 52–73.
• Reskin, B. F. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review, 42, 491–504.
• Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.
• Roe, A. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55.
• Roe, A. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science, 150, 313–318.
• Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology, 2, 247–270.
• Rosser, S. (Ed.) (1988). Feminism within the science and healthcare professions: Overcoming resistance. Exeter, England: A. Wheaton and Co.
• Royalty, G. M., & Magoon, T. M. (1985). Correlates of scholarly productivity among counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 458 – 461.
• Rushton, J. P., Murray, H. G., & Paunonen, S. V. (1983). Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors. Sciento-metrics, 5, 93–116.
• Ryan, J. (2005, March 3). Brains of men and women only part of the story in science. San Francisco Chronicle. (also found on the Internet at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file/ chronicle/ archive/ 2005/03/03/ BAGSKBJI981.DTL&type printable).
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., Stevens, T. P. M., & Carr, M. (1997). Metacognitive knowledge of gifted children and non- identified children in early elementary school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 25–35.
• Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quar- terly, 31, 37–39.
• Simonton, D. K. (1988a). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
• Simonton, D. K. (1988b). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.
• Simonton, D. K. (1990). Creativity in the later years: Optimistic prospects for achievement. Gerontologist, 30, 626 – 631.
• Simonton, D. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119 –130.
• Simonton, D. K. (2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4, 13–21.
• Smithers, A. G., & Batcock, A. (1970). Success and failure among social scientists and health scientists at a technological university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 144 –153.
• Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and epidemiology of representations. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 39 – 67). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002). Group data on high school grade point averages and scores on academic aptitude tests as predictors of institutional graduate rates. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 1042– 1052.
• Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. A., & Selmon, E. H. (1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72.
• Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983 Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In R. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent. Creativity research. (pp. 52–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publish- ing Corp.
• Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Pantheon.
• Summers, L. (2005, January 14). Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science and engineering workforce. Retrieved on March 28, 2005, from http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/ 2005/nber.html.
• Van Zelst, R. H., & Kerr, W. A. (1954). Personality self-assessment of scientific and technical personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 145–147.
• Waller, N. L., Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1995). Occupational interests, leisure time interests, and personality: Three domains or one? Findings from the Minnesota Twin Registry. In D. J. Lubinski and R. V. Dawis (Eds.). Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, meth- ods, and findings (pp. 233–259), Palo Alto, CA, Davies-Black Publishing, Inc.
• Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794.
• White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 3–118.
• Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 667– 677.
• Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (1997). General versus specific predictors of specialty choice in psychology: Holland codes and theoretical orientations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 333–341.
• Zachar, P., & Leong, F. T. L. (2000). A 10-year longitudinal study of scientists and practitioner interests in psychology: Assessing the Boulder model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 575–580.
• Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scien- tific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99 –140.
• Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. (2.nd edition). New Brunswick, NJ:
• Transaction Publishers