Sternberg 사고양식과 학습양식 및 문제해결력과의 관계

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study was intended to classify the Thinking Styles Type by utilizing the Thinking Styles Inventory(TSI) and to examine the relation between the Thinking Styles and the Learning Styles, and the relation between the Thinking Styles Type and the problem-solving. To attain the purpose of the study, the first validation(N=332) study was conducted and then the second validation(N=132) study was conducted for fabricating the Thinking Styles Inventory. Based on the validation results, the short-form Thinking Styles Inventory composed of 39 items was developed. By utilizing this test, 85 university students were classified into the Thinking Styles TypeⅠ and the Thinking Styles TypeⅡ. After that, the learning styles test(Study Process Questionnaire: SPQ) was conducted for examining the relation between the styles for the above classified objects. Then, to examine the relation between the Thinking Styles Type and the problem-solving, the problem-solving test and the problem-evaluation test was conducted.
Data gained from the above process of the study, were analyzed according to the problem of the study. The major results from the statistical verification are briefly described as follows.
First, as the result of verifying the validation of the classification by utilizing the logistic regression analysis after classifying the objects of the study by the Thinking Styles Type by utilizing only the short-form Thinking Styles Inventory, there was 94% validation and a possibility of utilizing the short-form Thinking Styles Inventory was proved, When the data gained from the long version(92%) and the short version(91%) was compared with the results of the logistic regression analysis, there was the similar result.
Second, as the result of conducting the multiple regression analysis by gradual selection method through setting the Thinking Styles as a predictor variable(independent variable) and two approaches of the Learning Styles, that is, a Deep Approach(DA) and a Surface Approach(SA) as a criterion variable(dependent variable) respectively, it was indicated that the Thinking Styles TypeⅠ predicted the DA and the Thinking Styles TypeⅡ predicted the SA.
As the result of the DA’s multiple regression analysis, two models which included the judicial style and the liberal style were significant. In the predictability of Thinking Styles about the Learning Styles, the judicial style predicted about 34%(β=.34, p<.01) of the DA, and the liberal style predicted about 25%(β=.25, p<.05) of it. As the result of the SA’s multiple regression analysis, only one model which included an executive style was significant. It was indicated that the executive style predicted 32%(β=.32, p<.01) of the SA.
Third, the Thinking Styles and the Learning Styles were somewhat related each other. Between the Thinking Styles and the Learning Styles, one statistically-significant canonical function out of 4 canonical functions was derived(Wilk's Lamda=.54, χ2=48.11, p<.001). As the result of calculating the canonical root(Rc2) which means a degree of shared variance among the canonical functions that the optimum weight was granted between the thinking style and the learning style, it was indicated that the variance 33.6%(Rc=.58) between two variables was explained in the canonical function 1.
Fourth, in evaluating the logical problems among the Thinking Styles Types, there was an difference only in four aspects of ‘difficulty’, ‘easiness’, ‘resolvability’, and ‘predictability’. In terms of ‘difficulty’, it was evaluated that TypeⅡ had more difficult problem than TypeⅠ(t=-2.28, p<.05). In terms of ‘easiness’, it was assessed that TypeⅠ had the easier problem than TypeⅡ(t=2.23, p<.05). With respect to the resolvability of the problem, it was evaluated that the problem of TypeⅠ was more easily resolved than TypeⅡ(t=2.30, p<.05). In terms of the predictability, it was evaluated that the problem of TypeⅠ was more easily predicted and solved than TypeⅡ(t=.29, p<.01). In spite of the partial difference in a definitive evaluation of the problem and the difference in the problem-solving strategy, there was no statistically-significant difference in the result of the logical problem solving(t=-5.11) among the Thinking Styles Types.
Fifth, in relation to the evaluation of ‘dilemma situation problem’ between the Thinking Styles Types, the group of TypeⅡ felt more difficulty only in the problem of the difficulty(t=-2.58, p<.05), and in other 9 items, there was no statistically-significant difference. Even in the result of the dilemma situation problem-solving, there was no statistically-significant difference between the thinking style types like the logical problem-solving t=1.28).
Based on the above results of the study, the conclusions are drawn as follows.
The result of this study is meaningful because it looked at the Thinking Styles of Sternberg which is in the process of verification from the different viewpoint. It extends the likelihood of the Thinking Style’s limitation overcome and utilization and makes the chance of the possibility of the new style’s theorization. In this study, it was verified that the Thinking Styles and the Learning Styles are related each other. Such the results provides the basic data for verifying the relevancy of styles which are included in the Intellectual Styles as well as the Thinking Styles, and provides the base which can extend the understanding on the various styles. Also, through examining the relevancy between the Thinking Styles and the problem-solving, it made the chance to examine the relation with the styles, problem-solving and the learning achievement from the different new viewpoint from the existing study. As the conclusion of this study about the relevancy between the Thinking Styles and the problem-solving, a university education must be improved to the direction of cultivating the high-level thinking ability.
There is a critical viewpoint about the styles, but is it very important to identify the learner’s characteristics in terms of the education. If the learner’s type is identified by utilizing the various styles in the teaching and learning situation, the proper teaching method is applied and the suitable evaluation method is utilized, it will make more contribution to improve the teaching and learning effect.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 연구는 단축형 사고양식 검사를 활용하여 사고양식 유형을 분류하고 그에 따라 사고양식과 학습양식 간의 관련성 그리고 사고양식 유형과 문제해결과의 관련성을 살펴보고자 하였다. 연구목적을 달성하기 위하여 단축형 사고양식 검사를 제작하기 위한 1차 타당화(332명), 2차 타당화(132명) 연구를 실시하였다. 타당화 결과를 바탕으로 39문항으로 구성된 단축형 사고양식 검사를 개발하였고, 이 검사를 활용하여 85명의 대학생을 사고양식 유형Ⅰ과 유형Ⅱ 집단으로 분류하였다. 이후 분류된 연구대상에게 양식 간의 관련성을 알아보기 위하여 학습양식 검사를 실시하였으며, 사고양식 유형과 문제해결 간의 관련성을 알아보기 위하여 문제해결검사와 문제평가 검사를 실시하였다.
연구의 과정을 통하여 획득된 자료는 연구문제에 따라 분석되었으며, 통계적 검증을 통하여 얻어진 주요 결과를 간단하게 제시하면 다음과 같다.
첫째, 단축형 검사만을 활용하여 연구대상자들을 사고양식 유형으로 분류한 후 분류의 적합성을 로지스틱 회귀분석을 활용하여 검증한 결과 94%의 적합성을 보여 단축형 검사의 활용 가능성을 입증하였으며, 원검사(92%)와 간편형 검사(91%)로 획득된 자료를 로지스틱 회귀분석한 결과와 비교하였을 때 유사한 결과를 나타내었다.
둘째, 사고양식을 예언변인(독립변인)으로 하고 학습양식의 2개 차원 즉, 심층적 차원과 표층적 차원을 각각 준거변인(종속변인)으로 하여 단계적 선택방법에 의한 다중회귀분석을 실시한 결과 사고양식 유형Ⅰ은 심층적 차원을 예언하고, 사고양식 유형Ⅱ는 표층적 차원을 예언하는 것으로 나타났다.
심층적 차원의 다중회귀분석 결과 사법적 양식과 진보적 양식이 투입된 2개의 모형이 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 학습양식에 대한 사고양식의 예언력을 살펴보면, 사법적 양식은 심층적 차원의 34%(β=.34, p<.01) 정도를 예언하였으며, 진보적 양식은 25%(β=.25, p<.05) 정도를 예언하였다. 표층적 차원에서는 행정적 양식이 투입된 1개의 모형만이 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 행정적 양식이 표층적 차원을 예언하는 정도는 32%(β=.32, p<.01)로 나타났다.
셋째, 사고양식과 학습양식 간에는 어느 정도의 관련성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 사고양식과 학습양식 간에는 4개의 정준함수 중에서 1개의 통계적으로 유의미한 정준함수가 도출되었다(Wilk's Lamda=.54이고, χ2=48.11, p<.001). 사고양식과 학습양식 간의 최적의 가중치가 부여된 정준함수들 간의 공유 변량의 정도를 의미하는 정준근(Rc2)을 구한 결과 정준함수 1에서 두 변인군 간의 변량 33.6%(Rc=.58)를 설명하는 것으로 나타났다.
넷째, 사고양식 유형 간 ‘논리적 문제’에 대한 평가에 있어서는 곤란성, 수월성, 분해성, 추측성의 4개 측면에서만 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 곤란성 측면에서는 유형Ⅱ가 유형Ⅰ에 비해서 더 문제가 곤란하다고 평가하였으며(t=-2.28, p<.05), 수월성 측면에서는 유형Ⅰ이 유형Ⅱ 보다 문제가 더 수월하다고 평가했다(t=2.23, p<.05). 그리고 문제의 분해성 측면에서는 유형Ⅰ이 유형Ⅱ 보다 문제가 더 분해되기 쉬운 것으로 평가했으며(t=2.30, p<.05), 추측성 측면에서도 유형Ⅰ이 유형Ⅱ 보다 문제가 더 추측해서 풀기가 쉽다고 평가하였다(t=.29, p<.01). 문제에 대한 정의적인 평가에서의 부분적인 차이, 그리고 문제해결전략에서의 차이에도 불구하고, 사고양식 유형 간에는 ‘논리적 문제’ 해결(t=-5.11)의 결과에서 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
다섯째, 사고양식 유형 간 ‘딜레마 상황 문제’에 대한 평가에 있어서는 곤란성 문항에서만 유형Ⅱ의 집단이 더 곤란하게 느꼈던 것으로 나타났고(t=-2.58, p<.05), 그 이외의 9개 문항에서는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. ‘딜레마 상황 문제’ 해결의 결과에서도 ‘논리적 문제’의 해결에서와 마찬가지로 사고양식 유형 간에는 통계적으로 유의미한 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다(t=1.28).
이상의 연구결과를 토대로 다음과 같이 연구의 결론을 내리고자 한다.
이 연구의 결과는 아직은 검증의 과정에 있는 Sternberg의 사고양식을 다른 시각에서 조망해 보았다는 데에 의의가 있다. 이는 사고양식의 제한점 극복과 활용 가능성 확대 그리고 새로운 양식의 이론화 가능성의 계기를 마련하는 것이다. 그리고 이 연구에서는 사고양식과 학습양식이 서로 관련이 있다는 것을 검증하였다. 이러한 결과는 사고양식뿐만 아니라 지적양식에 포함되는 다른 양식들 간의 관련성을 검증하는 기초적인 자료를 제공하는 것이며, 다양한 양식에 대한 이해의 폭을 넓힐 수 있는 근거를 제공하는 것이다. 또한, 사고양식과 문제해결과의 관계를 살펴봄으로써 양식과 문제해결 및 학업성취와의 관계를 기존의 연구와는 다른 새로운 관점에서 살펴보는 계기를 마련하였다. 사고양식과 문제해결과의 관계에 대한 이 연구에서의 결론은 고차원적인 사고력을 길러주는 방향으로 대학교육이 개선되어야함을 시사하는 것이다.
양식에 대한 비판적 시각이 없는 것은 아니지만, 학습자의 양식적인 특성을 파악하는 것은 교육적으로 상당히 중요한 것일 수밖에 없다. 교수-학습의 상황에서 다양한 양식들을 조심스럽게 활용하여 학습자의 유형을 파악하고 그에 따른 적합한 교수방법을 적용하며, 그에 적합한 평가방법들을 활용한다면 교수-학습의 효과를 향상시키는데 보다 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• A. 연구문제의 제기 = 1
• B. 연구의 중요성 및 의의 = 10
• C. 용어의 정의 = 13
• D. 연구의 제한점 = 15
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 = 17
• A. 사고양식 = 17
• B. 학습양식 = 26
• C. 문제해결 = 34
• D. 선행연구의 고찰 = 40
• Ⅲ. 연구문제 = 56
• Ⅳ. 연구방법 및 절차 = 64
• A. 연구대상 = 64
• B. 측정도구 = 67
• C. 연구절차 = 75
• D. 자료의 처리 = 77
• Ⅴ. 결과 및 해석 = 79
• A. 단축형 사고양식 검사 개발 = 79
• B. 사고양식 검사의 판별성 검증 = 80
• C. 사고양식과 학습양식의 관계 = 92
• D. 사고양식과 문제해결과의 관계 = 99
• Ⅵ. 논의 및 결론 = 105
• A. 연구결과의 요약 = 105
• B. 논의 = 109
• C. 결론 = 113
• D. 제언 = 115
• 참고문헌 = 120
• <부록 1> 사고양식 검사(간편형 검사-65문항) = 140
• <부록 2> 사고양식 검사(단축형 검사-39문항) = 146
• <부록 3> 학습양식 검사 = 150
• <부록 4> 문제해결 검사 = 153
• <부록 5> 문제평가 검사 = 155
• <부록 6> 단축형 사고양식 검사 개발 = 156
• 국문초록 = 176
• Abstract = 179

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. 학습양식, 임창제, 학습양식, , 1994

2. Thinking styles, Sternberg, Robert J, Cambridge University Press, , 1999

3. How To Solve it?, G.Polya, 우정호, How to solve it, , 1957

4. Process of learning, Moore, Biggs, , 1993

5. Theory and practice, Keefe, , 1987

6. Language and thought, Vygotsky, L, , 1986

7. Self-Directed Search, Holland, Self-directed search, , 1994

8. Human problem solving, Newell, Allen, Prentice-Hall, Human problem solving, , 1972

9. Management initiative, Kirton, , 1961

10. You are how you think, Gridley, , 1998

11. Thinking and reasoning, Garnham, Alan, Blackwell, Thinking and reasoning, , 1994

12. Rationality and reasoning, Evans, Jonathan St. B. T, Psychology Press, , 1996

13. Thinking styles inventory, Sternberg, Wagner, , 1992

14. Education and intelligence, Snow, Yalow, , 1982

15. Thinkingstylesandthegifted, Sternberg, Grigorenko, Thinking Styles and the gifted, , 1993

16. In search of the human mind, Sternberg, Robert J, harcourt brace college, , 1998

17. Allowing for thinking styles, Sternberg, R. J., , 1994

18. Styles ofthinking intheschool, Grigorenko, Sternberg, Styles of thinking in theschool, , 1995

19. P roblem solving and reasoning, G reeno, S im on, Problem solving and reasoning, , 1988

20. Understanding student learning, Entwistle, Noel James, C. Helm, Understanding student learning, , 1982

21. Educational Psychology(10th ed.), Woolfolk, , 2007

22. The NEO-PI-R: Professionalmanual, Costa, McCare, , 1992

23. Cognitive Conceptions of Learning, Shuell, Cognitive conceptions of learning, , 1986

24. Problem solving and comprehension, Lochhead, Whimbey, , 1999

25. Styles and strategies of learning, Pask, , 1976

26. Are cognitive styles still instyle, Grigorenko, Sternberg, , 1997

27. Learning style inventory(version3), Kolb, Learning style inventory-version 3, , 1985

28. The principles of psychology(Vol 2), James, W., James, , 1890

29. Survey of research onlearning styles, Klavas, Beaudry, Dunn, , 1989

30. Student Learning Styles Questionnaire, Grasha, S.W.Reichmann, , 1975

31. Learning : principles and applications, Klein, Stephen B, McGraw-Hill, , 1991

32. Profiling and utilizing learning style, Keefe, , 1988

33. A Threefold Model of IntellectualStyles, Sternberg, Zhang, , 2005

34. Productive environmentpreference survey, Price, Dunn, , 1996

35. Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.), Tabachnick, B. G., Using multivariate statistics(2nded), , 1996

36. Learning Style Inventory technical manual, Kolb, Learning style inventory technical manual, , 1978

37. Thinkingstylesandpersonalitytyperevisited, Zhang, Thinking styles and personality type revisited, , 2001

38. (New Amos 7.0) 구조방정식모형 분석, 김계수, 한나래출판사, New AMOS 7.0 구조방정식모형 분석, , 2007

39. Student approaches to learning and studying, Biggs, John B, Australian Council for Educational Research, Student approaches to learning and studying, , 1987

40. Teaching for quality learning at university, Biggs, , 1999

41. Cognitivepsychologyanditsimplication(3rdEd.), Anderson, Cognitive psychology and its implication(3rd Ed), , 1990

42. Creativity research; past present and future, Guilford, "Creativity research: Past present, , 1987

43. Personality : a psychological interpretation, Allport, Gordon W, Henry Holt and Company, Personality: a psychological interpretation, , 1937

44. The Study Process Questionnaire(SPQ): Manual, Biggs, , 1987

45. Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills, Keefe, , 1991

46. Mechanisms of forgetting in short-term memory, Reitman, , 1971

47. Implicit memory: Retention without remembering, Roediger, , 1990

48. Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd Ed.), Mayer, "Thinking, , 1992

49. Making vocational choices : a theory of careers, Holland, John L, Prentice-Hall, , 1973

50. Recognizing, defining,and representing problems, Naples, Pretz, Sternberg, "Recognizing, , 2003

51. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning, Sloman Bulletin, , 1996

52. Are thinking styles and personality type related, Zhang, , 2000

53. Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality, Epstein, , 1991

54. The revised two-factorstudy process questionnaire, Kember, Leung, Biggs, , 2001

55. A Capsule History of Theory and Research on Styles, Sternberg, Grigorenkon, , 2001

56. Cognitive style and GCSE performance inmathematics, Riding, Caine, , 1993

57. Does higher education promote independentlearning?, Kember, Gow, , 1990

58. Motivationalfactorsinstudents'approachestolearning, Entwistle, , 1988

59. 사고양식 R J. Sternberg, 1997, Thinking styles, 김인선, 이종승, "사고양식 R J. Sternberg, , 2004

60. 효과적인 문제해결 Effective problemsolving, 조증열, , 1998

61. Individual and group differences in study processes, Biggs, , 1978

62. Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them, Gregorc, Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them, , 1979

63. Thinking styles in creative writers and journalists, Kaufman, James Corey, Yale University, , 2001

64. Adaptors and innovators: A description and ameasures, Kirton, , 1976

65. From theory to practice: A cognitive systemsapproach, Biggs, , 1993

66. An examination of accounting students' thinkingstyles, Tucker, , 1999

67. Assessment of children: Cognitive applications(4thed), Sattler, , 2001

68. Style of learning and thinking: Administrator'smanual, Torrance, , 1988

69. Psychological differentiation : studies of development, Witkin, Herman A, John Wiley, , 1962

70. The role of thinking styles in psychosocialdevelopment, Zhang, , 2002

71. Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains, Voss, , 1988

72. Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance, Grigorenco, Sternbeg, "Styles of thinking abilities, , 1997

73. The constructvalidity of one learning styles instrument, Wintergerst, Itzwen, DeCapua, , 2001

74. Therelationshipbetweenthinkingstylesandpersonalitytypes, Isiker, Balkis, The relationship between thinking stylesand personality types, , 2005

75. Integration of problem solving into Instructional Design, Jonassen, , 2002

76. Multivariate approaches to the study of cognitive styles, Vernon, , 1973

77. Natures of problem solving abilities. In W. K.Estes(Ed.), G reeno, , 1978

78. Thinking Styles and the five-factor model of personality, Huang.J, Zhang, , 2001

79. Validity and reliability of the thinking styles inventory, Seval FER, , 2005

80. Cognition and thought : an information-processing approach, Reitman, Walter Ralph, Wiley, , 1965

81. Learning to solve problems : an instructional design guide, Jonassen, David H., Pfeiffer, , 2004

82. Theoretical models of everyday problem solving inadulthood, Luszcz, , 1984

83. 사고유형(S.I.Robertson,1999,Typesofthinking.Routledge), 이영애, "사고유형(S I. Robertson, , 2003

84. 선행 학습과 일반능력 및 학업성취 학습요인, 임인제, 선행 학습과 일반능력 및 학업 성취 학습 요인, , 1977

85. 수업양식과 학습양식의 일치 효과 및 그 의의, 권낙원, 한국교육과정학회, "교육과정연구, , 1984

86. Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction, Jonassen, David H., Routledge, "Handbook of individualdifferences, , 2010

87. On qualitative differences in learningoutcome and process Ⅰ, S?lj?, Marton, , 1976

88. phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the worldaround us, Marton, , 1981

89. Conversational techniques in the study and practice ofeducation, Pask, , 1976

90. Sternberg의 지능 및 사고양식 이론의 타당화 연구, 김소연, , 2000

91. Towards a categorization of cognitivestyles and learning styles, Rayner, Riding, , 1997

92. 사고양식, 의사결정, 창의적 인성간의 관계 연구, 최지혜, 최지혜, 숙명여자대학교 대학원, "사고양식 의사결정, , 2003

93. 인지양식이 문제유형별 문제해결에 미치는 영향, 조규락, 배태일, , 2005

94. Contributions of thinking styles to critical thinkingdispositions, Zhang, , 2003

95. Differential adoption of study approaches withinindividual students, Eley, , 1992

96. Furthercross-culturalvalidation ofthetheoryof mental self-government, Zhang, Further cross-cultural validation of the theory ofmental self-government, , 1999

97. Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles, Dunn, , 1993

98. What we know about learning styles from research inspecial education, Snider, , 1990

99. Approaches to studying and levels ofprocessing in university students, Entwistle, Waterston, , 1988

100. Do thinking styles contribute to academicachievementbeyond abilities?, Zhang, Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievementbeyond abilities?, , 2001

101. Measuring thinking styles in addition tomeasuring personality traits?, Zhang, Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuringpersonality traits?, , 2002

102. The Chinese learner: Culturalpsychological, and contextual influences, Biggs, Watkins, "The Chinese learner: Culturalpsychological, , 1996

103. Why innovations come and go(and mostly go): The case ofwhole language, Stahl, , 1999

104. Do styles of thinking matter among Hongkong secondary school students?, Zhang, , 2001

105. Meta-analysis of experimental research based onthe Dunn and Dunn Model, Lovelace, , 2005

106. Contextual dependence of learningapproaches: The effects of assessments, Bain, Thomas, , 1984

107. Relationship between Thinking Styles Inventory andProcess Questionnaire, Zhang, , 2000

108. Understanding learning and teaching : the experience in higher education, Prosser, Michael, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, , 1999

109. 물리문제 해결과정에서 학생들의 사고과정에관한 연구, 박학규, 권재술, 물리문제 해결과정에서 학생들의 사고과정에 관한 연구, , 1994

110. 사고양식·자기효능감·학업성취도의 구조적 관계 분석, 김효순, 사고양식 · 자기효능감 · 학업성취도의 구조적 관계분석, , 2003

111. Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles foracademic performance, Zhang, , 2004

112. 학생들의 물리 문제 해결 과정과 문제 공간의 유형 분석, 朴鶴圭, 청주교육대학교 과학교육연구소, 학생들의 물리 문제해결 과정과 문제공간의 유형분석, , 1994

113. The intention to both memories and understand:Another approach to learning?, Kember, , 1996

114. Experiential learning : experience as the source of learning and development, Kolb, David A., Prentice-Hall, Experiential Learning: Experience as the source oflearning and development, , 1984

115. Young children's academic achievement as a functionof their cognitive styles, Saracho, , 1984

116. Manual, a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Myers, Isabel Briggs, Consulting Psychologists Press, Manual: A guide to thedevelopment and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, , 1985

117. Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development, Sternberg, Mental self-government: A theory of intellectualstyles and their development, , 1988

118. 영역별 영재와 일반아동의 사고양식과 학습양식과의 관계, 황희숙(Whang Hee-Suk), 윤소정(Yune So-Jung), 임소혜(Lim So-Hye), 한국열린교육학회, "열린교육연구, , 2006

119. Inquiring systems andproblem structures: Implications for cognitivedevelopment, Wood, Inquiring systems and problem structures: Implicationsfor cognitive development, , 1983

120. A validation of the thinking stylesinventory: Implications for gifted education, Feldhusen, Dai, , 1999

121. Reflection-impulsivity and wholist-analytic: twofledglings? or is R-I a cuckoo?, Jones, , 1997

122. T he nature of cognitive styles: P roblem s and prom ise ineducational practice, Messick, The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promisein educational practice, , 1984

123. 고등학교 영재학생과 일반학생의 사고유형과 학습유형 차이, 윤소정, 부산대학교 대학원, 부산대학교 대학원 석사학위논문, , 2001

124. 학업성취 및 성취동기 예측변인으로서의 사고양식 프로파일, 김성일, 윤미선, 한국교육심리학회, "교육심리연구, , 2004

125. Strategic decision making:The influence of CEO experience and use of tacit knowledge, Simmonds, Brockmann, , 1997

126. 사고양식 검사도구의 타당화 연구- 초?중등 교사들을 대상으로-, 윤미선, 사고양식 검사도구의 타당화 연구: 초 · 중등 교사들을 대상으로, , 1998

127. Are learning approaches andthinking styles related A study in two Chinese Populations, Sternberg, Zhang, , 2000

128. The manner of style: Manifestations of personality oncognition learning, and teaching, Messick, "The manner of style: Manifestations of personality oncognition learning, , 1994

129. 문제의 특성에 따른 대학생들의 화학문제 해결과정의 차이 분석, 박윤배, 홍미영, 한국과학교육학회, 문제의 특성에 따른 대학생들의 화학 문제해결 과정의 차이 분석, , 1995

130. Structural equation modeling with AMOS : basic concepts, applications, and programming, Byrne, Barbara M, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, "Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basicconcepts applications, , 2001

131. Thinking styles abilities, andacademic achievement among Hong Kong university students, Zhang, Sternberg, "Thinking styles abilities, , 1998

132. Students' conceptions of learning, the classroomenvironment, and approaches to learning, Smith, "Students' conceptions of learning, , 2000

133. 유치원교사의 사고양식 및 목표지향성이 역할수행에 미치는 영향, 김미경, 한국아동교육학회, "아동교육, , 2006

134. 사고양식에 따른 학습동기 및 교과흥미가 학업성취에 미치는 영향, 윤미선, 高麗大學校 大學院, 사고양식에 따른 학습동기 및 교과 흥미가 학업성취에 미치는 영향, , 2003

135. 어머니의 사고양식 및 양육효능감과 유아의 사회적 능력과의 관계, 문태형, 한국아동학회, "아동학회지, , 2002

136. Form representation todecision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations, Lawrence, Engle, Voss, , 1991

137. Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence:Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive style, Kogan, "Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence:Creativity, , 1983

138. The IDEAL problem solver: A guidefor improving thinking, learning, and creativity(2nd ed.), Bransford, Stein, "The IDEAL problem solver: A guidefor improving thinking, , 1993

139. Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence andpersonality, Sternberg, Thinking styles: theory and assessment at theinterface between intelligence and personality, , 1994

140. Why and How Do Hong Kong Students Learn? Usingthe Learning and Study Process Questionnaires, Biggs, , 1992

141. 성별과 전공계열에 따른 예비교사의 사고양식과 창의적 인성의 관계, 서미옥, 한국교육학회, "교육학연구, , 2003

142. Assessing thinking styles in the theory ofmental self-government: A Hong Kong validity study, Zhang, Sachs, , 1997

143. Mathematical concept attainment of sixth gradestudents in relation to their cognitive styles, Pendleton, , 1975

144. The approaches to learning of studentsin a traditional and in a problem-based medical school, Newble, Clarke, , 1986

145. 분석지능, 창의지능, 사고양식이 학업성취도에 미치는 상대적 예측력, 이정규, 김진철, 나동진, 한국교육방법학회, "분석지능 창의지능, , 2006

146. 문제해결의 수학적 전략 Techniques of problem solving. American Mathematical Society, 좌준수, 임중삼, , 2002

147. Cross-cultural of models ofapproaches to learning: An application of confirmatory factor analysis, Wong, Lin, Watkins, , 1996

148. On the dynamicsof students' approaches to learning: the effects of theteaching/learning environment, Dochy, Janssens, Struyven, Gielen, , 2006

149. Flexibility of cognitive style and isrelationship to academic achievement in fourth and sixth grades, Strag, Yeatts, , 1971

150. Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes, Jonassen, Instructional design models for well-structured andill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes, , 1997

151. 삼원지능?사고양식?학업성취의 관계에서과학영재와 일반학생의 구조적 차이, 나동진, 김진철, 삼원지능 · 사고양식 · 학업성취의 관계에서 과학영재와일반학생의 구조적 차이, , 2004

152. Learning and Thinking Styles: an analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement, Fanacisco, Learning and Thinking styles: Ananalysis of their interrelationship and influence on academicachievement, , 2000

153. what do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification, Biggs, , 1993

154. Styles of teaching and learning: An integrated outlineof educational psychology for students teachers and lectures, Entwistle, , 1981

155. A rational approach to developing and assessing theconstruct validity of a student learning style scales instrument, Grasha, Riechmann, , 1974

156. Strategy Use and Experience in Complex EverydayProblem Solving: Holistic Intuition Helps Novice and Analysis AidsExperts, Pretz, , 2004

157. 중,고생의 학업성취 결정요인으로서 사고양식, 학습동기, 교과흥미, 학습 전략간의 관계모형, 윤미선 ( Mi Sun Yoon ), 김성일 ( Sung Il Kim ), 한국교육심리학회, "중 · 고생의 학업성취 결정요인으로서 사고양식 학습동기, , 2004

158. Differences in the processed of solvingphysics problems between good physics problem solvers and poorphysics problem solvers, Mass, Finegold, , 1985

159. Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style orperceptual ability?-validating against thinking styles and academicachievement, Zhang, , 2004

160. 학습자의 정신용량과 덩이지식의 크기 및 문제의 요구정신용량이 과학 문제해결에 미치는 영향, 안수영, 한국교원대학교, 학습자의 정신 용량과 덩이지식의 크기 및 문제의 요구정신용량이과학문제해결에 미치는 영향, , 1995

161. Cognitive learningstyles and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses:Successful students versus students at risk, Ross, Drysdale, Schilz, , 2001

162. The dimensionality of approaches tolearning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on thestructure of the SPQ and LPQ, Kember, Leung, , 1998

163. The relationship of creativity measures toschool achievement and preferred learning and thinking style in asample of Korean high school students, Michael, Kim, , 1995

164. 사고양식 성취목표지향성, 성취도, 연령, 성별 특성이 교과흥미에미치는 영향-중고생의 과학교과를 대상으로-, 윤미선, "사고양식 성취목표지향성, , 2007