The Relationship between Thinking Styles and the Need for Cognition of Students in the Faculty of Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify the relationship between thinking styles and the need for cognition in students of the faculty of education, as well as the existence of significant differences between these two variables according to gender, department of study, class level, educational background from secondary school level, monthly incomes of families and the place where families have resided longest. The study was conducted with 820 students studying at different departments of the Faculty of Education at Gaziantep University, during the 2014-2015 academic year. In the study, data was collected using the Thinking Styles Scale and the Need for Cognition Scale, while demographic details of students were obtained through a Personal Information Form created by the researcher. Pearson’s correlation test, t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were employed in SPSS 20 software for data analysis. According to the findings of the study, students of the education faculty use the legislative thinking style the most and the conservative thinking style the least among the others given in the Thinking Styles Scale. According to the findings regarding the relationship between thinking styles and the need for cognition; the Thinking Styles Scale shows that there are significant differences between the legislative, executive, judicial, hierarchic, oligarchic, anarchic, local, internal, liberal dimensions of thinking and the need for cognition, while there is no significant difference between the global and conservative thinking styles and the need for cognition. It is seen that legislative, executive and hierarchic dimensions of the Thinking Styles Scale differ significantly according to the gender variable. Local, conservative and oligarchic dimensions of the Thinking Style Scale also show significant differences according to the department where the students study. This differentiation is seen in favor of the classroom teaching department against the Psychological Counselling and Guidance (PCG) students in the local thinking style dimension, while it is more favorable for the mathematics teaching department against the PCG students in both conservative and oligarchic dimensions. It is also seen that the legislative and local dimensions of the Thinking Styles Scale differ significantly according to the monthly incomes of families. This differentiation is in favor of the 2000 TL and above income group in each of these thinking styles, against those with monthly incomes between 500-1000 TL. On the other hand, the place where families have resided the longest, which is often the same place where students have completed their secondary education, do not differ significantly according to class levels. The Need for Cognition Scale scores differ significantly in favor of the 4th grade students according to the class level variable. A similar significant differentiation in the Need for Cognition Scale scores is also seen in favor of urban areas (provinces) against rural areas (villages) according to the place where families have resided the longest. Finally, the Need for Cognition Scale scores do not show any significant difference in terms of the departments students study at, their secondary school majors and monthly incomes of families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it