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

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 243 - 264, 15.06.2016

Güner Kutal Feyzullah Şahin

https://izlik.org/JA72TE57CC

Öz

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.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

psikoloji bilimi , gelişme , kişilik , matematik , yetenek

Kaynakça

• 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