Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

2nd Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research, (CY-ICER 2013)

The Educational Technology of Today.

A Computing Course on In-service Teachers
Valeria de Palo a *, Lucia Monacis b, Maria Sinatra c, Luigi Traetta d, Giancarlo Tanucci e
a



 "
"

  "



"
$("
"
&($%)"

b



"

"
$('"
"
($$##"

c



"
  "

"
!!

"
"
(#$%$"


Abstract
The current study aimed to explore the effectiveness of e-training programs tailored to teachers cognitive styles and the
influence of intrinsic motivation, learning strategies, and metacognition in an e-learning environment. The topic of the programs
was the use of digital technology in education. The research was carried out in secondary schools in Southern Italy. ANOVA
results showed that learning outcome was significantly affected by the above-mentioned factors. Path analysis results supported
for the expected indirect effect of metacognition and self-regulated learning on achievement. The final goal was the identification
of proposals for reshaping the future training of e-teachers.

The Authors.
Authors.Published
Published
Elsevier
2013
2013 The
byby
Elsevier
Ltd.Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Faculty of Education,

Selection
Cyprus and or peer-review under responsibility of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zehra znar, Ataturk Teacher Training Academy, North
Cyprus.
Keywords: Teacher education, e-learning envirnments, individual differences;

1. Introduction
Recently, in accordance with the general trend (Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Uslu, 2012), educational
hardware and software are becoming progressively more widespread in Italian schools. Both the teaching profession
itself and the employers of teachers are faced with this unprecedented challenge. However, due a lack of knowledge
and skills in using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), most of teachers fail to integrate them into
their courses. To remedy this emergence, specific professional trainings enable teachers to take advantage of the
potential of Internet-based tools, which facilitate greater interaction, enforce cooperation, support the modern
student centered strategies, and individualize instruction by providing a more self-managed and self-directed process
of development (Kabilan, 2005). This suggests that what is required is, rather than a transmitter of knowledge, an
e-teacher who plays the role of mentor, coach (Volman, 2005) and facilitator (Salmon, 2004).
In this context, self-evaluation plays a very important role, above all in the light of the constructivist theory of
learning, which examines individuals inner processes like thinking, memory, etc. According to this approach,

*
Corresponding author: Valeria de Palo. Tel.: +39-080-571-4448.
E-mail address: valeria.depalo@univr.it

1877-0428 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu, Near East University, Faculty of Education, Cyprus
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.879

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

individuals create or construct knowledge by attempting to bring meaning to new information and to integrate this
knowledge with their prior experience, thus working at a metacognitive level. Consequently, there is a need to
examine the influences of individual difference factors on learning, i.e., those individual characteristics such as
attitudes towards computer-based learning and cognitive learning style that may affect the design of humancomputer interaction (Sears, & Jacko, 2009a, 2009b). As cognitive style refers to a recurring pattern of perceptual
and intellectual activity (Messick, 1976; Riding, & Rayner, 1998), it is one of the most researched human factors in
the area of e-learning because of its great effect on learners preferences (e.g., Ford, & Chen, 2001; Graff, 2003,
2006, 2009).
Over the years, various cognitive styles have been identified often as opposing pair. The most common
hypotheses were made in the 1990s, when riding hypothesized that all cognitive styles could be categorized
according to two orthogonal dimensions. These are the who list-analytic dimension (i.e., the tendency for
individuals to set the task either in the broadest possible perspective or in a step-by-step learning), and the
verbalizer- imager dimension (i.e., the tendency for individuals to process information either in words or in images)
(Riding, & Cheema, 1991).
However, further human factors may have a significant impact on the implementation of the technologies in
educational practices. Intrinsic motivation, learning strategies, and metacognition are some of the main although
left mostly unstudied constructs (de Palo et al., 2012; Monacis et al., 2009; Sinatra et al., 2012). The first is driven
by an interest or enjoyment in the task itself, the second determines the approach for achieving the learning
objectives, and the third, in terms of a set of self-regulated strategies (Cornoldi et al., 2005), refers to the process of
taking control of ones own learning and behavior.
The overall aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of e-training programs previously tailored to
teachers four cognitive styles and recorded in the standard of the didactic content representation such as SCORM,
as well as to assess the role played by the attitude towards using the computer, intrinsic motivation, learning
strategies, and metacognition in learning. The topic of the programs was the introduction of the use of digital
technology in education. The final goal was the identification of proposals for reshaping the future training of eteachers.
2. The new teaching workforce
In front of the recognized benefits of hypermedia contents in teaching/learning process (Chen, 2010; Galanouli,
Murphy, & Gardner, 2004), there is still little literature on their application in non-traditional ways, especially when
cognitive styles are combined with a Sharable Content Object Reference Model - SCORM (ADL, 2011). SCORM is
an XML-based framework used to define and access information about Learning Objects (LOs) so they can be
easily shared among different Learning Management Systems (LMSs).
In our study, the tailorization of the LOs was carried out by means of the four-dimensions model of cognitive
style introduced by Cornoldi and De Beni in the 1990s (Cornoldi, & De Beni, 1997, 2001), i.e., the global-analytic
style and the visual-verbal style. As this was an integrated model foreseeing additional factors affecting learning,
such as attitudes, resilience, motivation, reward, self-efficacy, etc. (Mammarella, Cornoldi, and Pazzaglia, 2005, p.
35), the present research took into account the role of the following three factors: intrinsic motivation, learning
strategies, and metacognition, as proposed in the integrated model of.
In this context, a series of studies has highlighted the predictive role of intrinsic motivation on metacognition and
of both constructs on school achievement in target groups such as youngsters, teenagers, children, etc. (van Etten et
al., 1998; Meneghetti, De Beni, & Cornoldi, 2007), but not in adult people. The same happened for the mediating
role of self-regulation between motivational aspects and final outcomes (Bembenutty, & Karabenick, 2004).
Consequently, the objectives of the present research were:
1. To assess the effect of individual cognitive style differences and computer abilities on teachers learning process;
2. To test the educational benefits of adaptive educational contents integrated into an e-Learning platform;
3. To explore the mediating role of metacognition among the older adults attending an e-learning course.

469

470

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

Expected results were oriented to develop new methodologies for enabling teachers to reach an easier
understanding of technological materials.

3. Methods
3.1. Participants
The sample composed by 130 in-service teachers (62,2% female; Age: M = 45,6 SD = 3,7) recruited from two
secondary schools in Apulia (Southern Italy). 32 participants were excluded because they did not complete the
procedure. The remaining teachers were evenly divided into two groups, e-learners and conventional learners.
Trained research assistants administered tests.
3.2. Experimental procedure
The procedure four steps:
1. Questionnaire administration through computer,
2. Arrangement of the experimental setting,
3. Presentation of the learning units.
Learning materials were presented in two different ways: e-learners received the units tailored according to their
cognitive styles, whereas the conventional ones received the same but non-adapted units; 4. Comprehension tests.
They failed with < 18 points. The scores ranged from 18 to 30.
Before the arrangement of the experimental setting, an adaptive learning sequence system was developed in order
to define a process able to build an interoperable LO that could be easily integrated into any e-learning environment.
As the implementation of the defined adaptive model using SCORM standard requires a high level of granularity,
the LO was split into different units. Being SCO the smallest unit that can be lunched and traced by the LMS and
being the Sequencing and Navigation (SN) rules able to choose among these components and offer different
navigational paths, each unit was implemented in a SCO. In particular, two kinds of SCO were built for each topic,
i.e., the unit and the reinforcement. Furthermore, as the learning contents were presented in four cognitive styles,
eight SCOs were built for each unit. In more details: The units were followed by a multiple choice comprehension
test. If the test failed, the same learning content was given in the same cognitive style with a different presentation
mode followed by a second test. In case of successful learning, the navigation path supported by the same cognitive
style went on. Otherwise, the same content was presented by switching the second preferred cognitive style.
3.3. Instruments
1. Cognitive Style Questionare (CSQ) (De Beni, Mo, & Cornoldi, 2003). It measures cognitive style on a globalanalytic dimension and on a verbal-imagery dimension. Its reliability was found to be acceptable ( = .714). The test
included two parts. Each of them contained nine items using a 5-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to
strongly agree). Part I assessed analytic and global subjects. Participants had to see a figure modeled after the Rey
Complex Figure test for 30 sec. and then reproduce the stimulus figure from memory. The next task consisted in
answering the nine items to choose the global style or the analytic one. Part II assessed visual and verbal subjects.
Twelve words and twelve images were proposed. Participants answered nine items examining their preference for
imagery style or for verbal one. The questionnaire had to be completed individually within 25 minutes. The
following procedure determined the specific cognitive style. After assigning positive and negative scores to each
question according to the scheme suggested by the CSQ, we calculated: a. the total sum of the scores for each
dimension (analytic/global and visual/verbal styles); b. the standard deviation to assess the variability within the
scores resulting from the sum; c. the High-Values (x + ) and the Low-Values (x ). The cognitive style was

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

defined under these conditions: visual and analytic styles when the sum of the positive and negative scores was less
than the Low-Value (x1 < LV), verbal and global styles when the sum was higher than the High-Value (x1 > LV).
2. Computer Attitudes Scale (CAS) (Loyd, & Gressard, 1984; Liaw, 2002). It is a Likert-type instrument dealing
with individuals perception toward computer literacy, liking, usefulness, and intention to use it. The Italian version
of the CAS administered in the present research with a back-translation, included 16 statements divided into three
domains (affective, behavioral, and cognitive items) using a seven-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to
strongly agree). Cronbachs alpha statistic was used for the validation of the scale ( = .883).
3. Intrinsic Motivation Scale (IMS). This instrument was taken from the Questionnaire on the Processes of
Learning (QPA) worked out in 2005 by Polcek in the field of cognitive psychology (Polcek, 2005). The version
used in the present research was in the D-form (for adult people). The 18 items of the IMS, rated on a five-point
Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), assess participants subjective experience related to
interest, joyful involvement, persistence, perceived competence, usefulness, effort, and concentrated attention. All
these components are theorized to be positive predictors of autonomy, the idea being that intrinsically motivating
activities are those in which people engage for no reward other than the interest and enjoyment that accompany them
(Deci, 1972; Lepper, & Malone, 1987). Cronbachs alpha of the scale was high ( = .869).
4. Metacognition and Self-regulated Learning Scale (MeSRLS). Also this scale belonged to Polceks QPA
(Polcek, 2005). It assesses two different components that appear as a single factor in factor analysis, because a
good metacognitive ability improve the self-management of learning, i.e., a self-regulated learning. The 18 items of
the MeSRLS are rated on a five-point Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Cronbachs alpha
of the scale was high ( = .842).
5. Learning Strategies Scale (LSS) (Polcek, 2005). It involves totally 18 items rated on a five-point Likert scale
(from strongly disagree to strongly agree). They assess learners techniques such as: to choose the important
information, to take productive notes, to answer questions, to acknowledge a certain situation accurately, to select
the most appropriate learning strategy for own learning, to pursue the degree of effectiveness of the strategy, to get
motivated enough to learn, etc. Cronbachs alpha of the scale was high ( = .799).
5. Five learning units. Each unit containing not more than 7 chunks was elaborated according to the features of
the four cognitive styles. The topics dealt with the Using the educational technology of today. 1. Global style: 15
lines and key words in bold to highlight the main topic; 2. Analytic style: maximum 25 lines and a list of the main
elements of the unit; 3. Visual style: color characters, drawings, and cartoons were used; 4. Verbal style: the written
text was accompanied by an oral recording. The units had been previously submitted to a comprehension analysis.
An additional sample of students had selected the four most understandable versions (two for the first phase of
presentation and two for the reinforcing phase) among eight versions of each style of the same unit (4 for each
phase). Therefore, each unit consisted of a total of 16 SCOs and the whole package amounted to 80 SCOs.
6. Comprehension tests, made up of 30 multiple-choice questions concerning the content of the units, were
administered to participants after each unit to assess their learning performances. The proof had to be completed
within 20 minutes. The final test that was applied two weeks later was composed by the same questions put in a
different sequence.
3.4. Data analysis
The first purpose of this study was to assess the influence of intrinsic motivation, metacognition and learning
strategies on the final outcome in an e-learning environment. An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to
compare the scores of the above-mentioned learning processes between the two groups. Learning Objects
Adaptation (LOA) (2 levels: adaptation vs. non-adaptation), Intrinsic Motivation (IM), Metacognition and Selfregulated Learning (MeSRL), and, finally, Learning Strategies (LS) as independent variables were taken into
account. In order to divide each variable into two levels which high and low, it was calculated a cut-off value, thus
obtaining a 2x2x2x2 between-subjects design. The dependent variable was the learning outcome, defined as the
mean score between the first comprehension test and the second one.
Computer attitude was not considered because of the high scores obtained by all participants.
Data were analysed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20.0).

471

472

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

The null hypotheses were: H01) There was no main effect of the LOA, IM, MeSRL, and LS, on the learning
outcomes, i.e., there were no differences in the mean score of the learning outcomes between groups; H02) There
was no first, second, third, and fourth order interaction among LOA, IM, MeSRL, and LS.
Bivariate correlation analysis was conducted to verify the presence of a possible association among the variables.
The mediating role of metacognition and self-regulated learning within the relationship between intrinsic motivation
and learning outcomes was finally examined.

4. Results
Out of 98 subjects 23,47% (n = 23) were global, 24,49% (n = 24) analytics, 26,53% (n = 26) verbalizers, and
25,51% (n = 25) visualizers. 49 subjects composed each group.
ANOVA analysis indicated significant main effects of LOA (F (1,64) = 16,968, p < .05, partial 2 = .210),
Metacognition and Self-regulated Learning (F(3,64) = 3,526, p < .05, partial 2 = .142), Intrinsic Motivation (F(1,64) =
12,213, p < .05, partial 2 = .160), and Learning Strategies (F(1,64) = 6,388, p < .05, partial 2 = .091) on learning
outcomes. There was a statistically significant difference between mean scores obtained by e-learners and
conventional learners, learners with high and low level of metacognition, learners with high and low intrinsic
motivation, and with high and low levels of learning strategies. As for the first group, post-hoc analyses showed that
the e-learners gained higher mean score ( = 26,946) than the conventional ones ( = 24,959). With respect to
metacognition, the mean score gained by subjects with high level of metacognition ( = 27,172) was higher than the
score gained by those with lower level ( = 25,863). As for intrinsic motivation, subjects with high intrinsic
motivation gained higher mean scores ( = 26,797) than those with low intrinsic motivation. Finally, as for learning
strategies, the subjects with high levels of learning strategies gained higher mean scores ( = 26,027) than those
with low levels of learning strategies ( = 25,763).
As for the interaction effects was concerned, there were two first order interaction effects: LOA*IM (F(1,64) =
4,613, p < .05, partial 2 = .067), and MeSRL * Learning Strategies (F(1,64) = 8,313, p < .05, partial 2 = .115). There
was a statistically significant difference between mean scores gained by the e-learners and the conventional ones
with low level of metacognition. Findings from post-hoc analyses showed that the e-learners gained higher mean
scores ( = 28,500) than the conventional learners ( = 25,327) both with low level of metacognition.
Finally, as for MeSRL * Learning Strategies, there was a statistically significant difference between mean scores
gained by the subjects with high level of metacognition and low level of learning strategies. Post-hoc analyses
showed that learners with low level of metacognition gained higher mean scores ( = 26,995) than the subjects with
high level of metacognition ( = 24,806) both with low level of learning strategies.
Bivariate correlation indicated that intrinsic motivation was correlated positively to metacognition and selfregulated learning (r = .560, p < .001), and to learning outcomes (r = .511, p < .001). Metacognition and selfregulated learning correlated positively to learning outcomes (r = .780, p < .001). Learning strategies correlated
positively to metacognition (r =. 694, p < .001) and to intrinsic motivation (r =. 297, p < .005) but was not correlated
to learning outcomes.

473

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475
Table 1. Correlation among variables
M

SD

1. Intrinsic Motivation (IM)

4,67

2,542

2. Metacognition and Selfregulated Learning

(MeSRL)

5,49

1,301

.560**

3. Learning Strategies (LS)

5,20

1,829

.297**

.694**

4. Learning Outcomes (LO)

26,11

3,126

.511**

.780**

-.111

*p < .05 ** p < .001

Mediation analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis of indirect relationship between intrinsic motivation and
learning outcomes with metacognition as mediator (Baron, & Kenny, 1986).
A path model was estimated to examine the mediating role of metacognition and self-regulated learning
(MeSRL) between intrinsic motivation (IM) and learning outcomes (LO). It was estimated a first linear regression
model computing the total score of both IM (predictor) and LO (criterion) to test the significant effect of the former
on the latter: the direct path coefficient was significant (R2= .385, F (1/45) = 28,128 p < .001, IM = .62 p < .001);
as for the metacognition (mediator), it was estimated the second regression model between predictor IM and
mediator MeSRL: IM significantly influenced the mediator (R2= .391, F (1/45) = 28,859 p < .001, IM = .63 p <
.001). A multiple regression analysis was conducted with the metacognition and self-regulated learning predicting
the learning outcomes, while controlling for IM. Findings supported a total mediation (R2= .695, F (2/44) = 50,125
p < .001, IM = .17 n.s.; MeSRL = .71 p < .001).
5. Discussion
This study looked at the triangle of teachers, learning, and Educational Technologies. It is important to note that
teachers should not be considered as a homogeneous group because of both their different cultural backgrounds and
their need for learning new technologies. Therefore, in order to maximize learning outcomes, it would be necessary
to know how planning and providing e-learning contents considering individual preferences, learning characteristics,
and prior knowledge. In order to support equal access to learning for our sample, we tailored some LOs to teachers
cognitive style given in an e-environment. Such adaption was developed according to an integrated model of e
learning that included cognitive abilities, motivation, emotion, personality, and metacognition.
The goals were:
1. The effectiveness of to assess an adaptive e-learning system, and
2. The influence of motivation, to gain some understanding of metacognition, and learning strategies on the
learning outcomes (e.g., Tearle, 2003; Sang, Valcke, Braak, & Tondeur, 2010).
The results showed the main effects of the adaptation of learning contents, intrinsic motivation, metacognition
and self-regulated learning, and learning strategies, and the interaction effects between intrinsic motivation and
adaptation, and between metacognition and learning strategies.
Particularly, as for the adaptation of learning contents was concerned, the more positive outcome achieved by the
e-teachers reveals that when learning is not only personalized (e.g., according to cognitive style) but also offered in
an e-environment, learning performances are facilitated and improved.
As for intrinsic motivation, both groups of the participants obtained high scores in IMS. This means that the
interest in the text and a desire for personal growth increased this kind of motivation and success in learning.
Consequently, a rational and emotive involvement in studying was clearly evident: what was learned was considered

474

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

as something that enriches ones own personality and improves ones own autonomy. Furthermore, intrinsic
motivation resulted from the balance between competence and task: Competence depends on the perception of being
able to control events, and perception, in turn, depends on the difficulty of the task itself. This connection was
confirmed by the significance of the interaction effects between intrinsic motivation and the didactic materials
provided in e-environments and adapted to the participants characteristics. In this way, difficulties were reduced.
By analysing the results of MeSRLS and LSS, a significant main effect in both groups was observed. Subjects
with high scores in the above mentioned scales not only showed better achievement capabilities in self-monitoring,
better time management, and better physical environment regulation, but also they were able to choose appropriate
learning strategies. However, the interaction effect showed that those participants with high metacognition and low
levels of learning strategies obtained better results. Metacognition offset, therefore, the inefficient use of learning
methods. Hence, subjects could become better learners if they become more aware of their learning.
These findings suggest that, in the classroom, teachers should initially identify students individual differences
and cognitive style preferences by analysing their characteristics and background knowledge, and then use this
information to plan the optimal learning sequence (Hixon, & Buckenmeyer, 2009; Karagiorgi, & Charalambous,
2006; Lawless, & Pellegrino, 2007; Liu, & Szabo, 2009).
The second hypothesis of our research pointed out that both motivation and metacognition played a significant
role in e-learning process being the former a predictor and the latter a mediator, thus supporting the findings of
previous investigations carried out on young people in a traditional learning context (Bembenutty & Karabenick,
2004; Meneghetti, De Beni, & Cornoldi, 2007). The results from path analysis supported our point of view that
learning outcomes were indirectly related to teachers intrinsic motivation through self-regulated strategies.
In summary, our research could be considered a first empirical step towards what is generally called
metacognitive e learning (De Beni, Meneghetti, & Pezzullo, 2010). It is a new model that may be used as a
methodological prototype for a wide range of on-line didactic materials centred on in-service teachers: thanks to its
usability tailored to individual differences and needs, it is an effective support in learning process.
This study was carried out under some limitations. First, the profile questionnaire was based on self-report
assessment. Hence, its accuracy depended on whether participants answered honestly or had the self-awareness to
answer it correctly. To overcome this difficulty, a combination of quantitative and qualitative instruments was
recommended. A second aspect relied on the methodology: larger numbers of individuals and a structural equation
modelling methodology might help to clarify the role of learning strategies and other factors within this model. A
further question concerned the lack of interaction among participants. Consequently, the overall culture of using
online technologies for educational goals is an issue that needs to be more assessed as for both the improvement of
teaching/learning methodological paths and the creation of communities able to achieve shared learning objectives.
References
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and selfregulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (1), 35-57.
Chen, L. H. (2010). Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 54, 1028-1035.
Cornoldi C., & De Beni, R. (1997). Imparare a studiare. Strategie, stili cogniti, metacognizione e atteggiamenti nello studio. Trento: Erickson.
Cornoldi C., & De Beni R. (2001). Imparare a studiare 2. Strategie, stili cognitivi, metacognizione e atteggiamenti nello studio. Trento: Erickson.
Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Zamperlin, C., & Meneghetti, C. (2005). AMOS-15. Strumenti di valutazione di abilit e motivazione allo studio per
studenti dagli 8 ai 15 anni. Trento: Erickson.
De Beni, R., Meneghetti, C., & Pezzullo, L. (2010). Approccio metacognitivo e corsi universitari a distanza. TD - Tecnologie Didattiche, 49, 2128.
De Beni, R., Mo, A., & Cornoldi, C. (2003). AMOS. Abilit e motivazione allo studio: prove di valutazione e orientamento. Trento: Erickson.
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
de Palo, V., Sinatra, M., Tanucci, G., Monacis, L., Di Bitonto, P., Roselli, T., & Rossano, V. (2012). How cognitive styles affect the e-learning
process. In 12th Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 359-363). NEW YORK: IEEE Computer Society.
Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (3), 255-284.
Ford, N., & Chen, S.Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 32 (1), 5-22.

Valeria de Palo et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89 (2013) 468 475

475

Galanouli, D., Murphy, C., & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers &
Education, 43 (1-2), 63-79.
Graff, M. G. (2003). Learning from web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (4), 407418.
Graff, M. G. (2006). Constructing and maintaining an effective hypertext-based learning environment: Web-based learning and cognitive style.
Education and Training, 48 (2-3), 143-155.
Graff, M. G. (2009). Can Cognitive Style predict how Individuals use Web-based Learning Environments? In C. Mourlas, N. Tsianos, & P.
Germanakos (Eds), Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-based Education: Integrating Human Factors and Personalization (pp. 4657). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: implications for professional development. Computers in the
Schools, 26 (2), 130-146.
Kabilan, M. K. (2005). Online professional development: an analysis of teacher competency. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21 (2),
51-57.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Charalambous, K. (2006). ICT in-service training and school practices: in search for the impact. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 32 (4), 395-411.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Profesionnal development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: knows, unknows, and
ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 575-614.
Lepper M. R., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J.
Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction (pp. 255-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, (Vol. 3).
Liaw S.-S. (2002). An Internet survey for perceptions of computers and the World Wide Web: relationship, prediction, and difference. Computers
in Human Behavior, 18, 17-35.
Liu, Y, & Szabo, Z. (2009). Teachers attitudes toward technology integration in schools: a four-year study. Teachers & Taeching. 15 (1), 5-23.
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 44 (2), 501-505.
Mammarella, N., Cornoldi, C., & Pazzaglia, F. (2005). Psicologia dellapprendimento multimediale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Meneghetti, C., De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (2007). Strategic knowledge and consistency in students with good and poor study skills. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 628-649.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning (pp. 4-23). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Monacis, L., Finamore, R., Sinatra, M., Di Bitonto, P., Roselli, T., & Rossano, V. (2009). An Adaptive Learning Object SCORM standard.
International Workshop on Distance Education Technologies. In 14th Int. Conf. Distributed Multimedia Systems (pp. 222-227). San Francisco
Bay, USA: 12KSI Press.
Polcek, K. (2005). QPA - Questionario sui Processi di Apprendimento. Superiori e universit. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles - an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Salmon, G. (2003). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online. London: Routledge.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. v., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective
teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54 (1), 103-112.
Sears, A., & Jacko, J. A. (Eds.) (2009a). Human-Computer Interaction: Design Issues, Solutions, and Applications. Philadelphia: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Sears, A., & Jacko, J. A. (Eds.) (2009b). Human-Computer Interaction Fundamentals. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Group.
Sinatra, M., de Palo, V., Tanucci, G., & Monacis, L. (2012). The role of individual differences in an e-learning environment. In EDULEARN12
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 7518-7526). Barcelona.
Tearle, P. (2003). Enabling teachers to use information and communication technology for teaching and learning through professional
development: influential factors. Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers professional development, 7 (3), 457-472.
Uslu, O. (2012). Effects of the professional development program on Turkich teachers: technology integration along with attitude towards ICT in
education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educatioinal Technology, 11 (3), 115-127.
van Etten, S., Pressley, M., Freebern, G., & Echevarria, M. (1998). An interview study of college freshmens beliefs about their academic
motivation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13 (1), 105-130.
Volman, M. (2005). A variety of roles for a new type of teacher educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 2 (1), 15-31.