Title
The impact of teaching styles on students' learning styles and
career interests
Advisor(s)
Zhang, LF
Author(s)
Tai, Wing-yin.; 戴詠賢.
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
Tai, W. [戴詠賢]. (2012). The impact of teaching styles on
students' learning styles and career interests. (Thesis).
University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b4985878.
2012
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/181877
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights)
and the right to use in future works.
The Impact of Teaching Styles on Students’ Learning Styles
and Career Interests
TAI, Wing Yin (戴詠賢)
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
August 2012
1
Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis represents my original work, except where
due acknowledgment is made, and that it has not been previously included in a
thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution
for a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
Signed: _________________________
TAI, Wing Yin (戴詠賢)
August 2012
i
Abstract of thesis entitled
The Impact of Teaching Styles on Students’ Learning Styles
and Career Interests
Submitted by
TAI, Wing Yin
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
in August 2012
This research aimed to investigate whether or not intellectual styles are
value-laden and if they are malleable. This aim was achieved through
understanding the types of intellectual styles that teachers and students prefer each
other to use in the teaching-learning process. It was further achieved by
examining whether or not teaching styles affect students’ learning styles and their
career interests.
This research employed a mixture of experimental and longitudinal designs
as well as a combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures. It was
composed of one pilot study and three main studies. The pilot study was intended
to evaluate the two inventories (the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning
Inventory, PTSLI, and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory,
ii
PTSTI) used in the first study. The purpose of Study One was to identify teachers’
preferences for students’ learning styles and students’ preferences for teachers’
teaching styles.
A total of 226 teachers and 268 students participated in Study
One. A series of data analyses revealed that the PTSLI and the PTSTI were
applicable to Chinese secondary school teachers and students. The pilot study and
Study One consistently revealed that teachers and students preferred each other to
use Type I styles in learning and teaching, respectively. These findings also
indicated that styles are value-laden.
Study Two was an experimental study to examine the impact of teaching
styles on students’ learning styles and on their career interests. A total of seven
teachers and 464 students participated in the control group, whereas the
experimental group was composed of six teachers and 219 students. Classroom
instruction was implemented in each participating teacher’s school for one
semester (6 months). A pre-test and post-test were conducted before and after the
classroom instruction. Students’ learning styles were measured by the Thinking
Styles Inventory-Revised II in both tests. At the time of post-test, students also
completed the Self-Directed Search that assessed their career interests. In a series
of repeated-measures MANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and paired t-tests
conducted in Study Two, changes in students’ learning styles in both the control
and the experimental groups were identified. Students in the experimental group
demonstrated a trend towards Type I learning styles, whereas students in the
control group increased their use of Type II learning styles after the instruction
period. Furthermore, teachers’ teaching styles had a direct impact on students’
development of particular types of career interests. Students in the experimental
group developed a wider range of career interests than students in the control
group.
Study Three was a qualitative study conducted among 16 students to
explore how and why their learning styles underwent changes. Findings from
iii
Studies Two and Three supported the contention that styles are malleable. Results
demonstrated that students in the control group showed more features of using
Type II learning styles, whereas students in the experimental group gradually
increased their use of Type I learning styles after the instruction period.
Contributions and implications of the findings are discussed.
iv
Acknowledgements
Studying part-time for a doctoral degree had seemed to be an impossible
mission for me. Overcoming many difficulties and challenges has finally made
this mission possible. The completion of this degree is a miracle in my life. At this
moment, my heart is filled with immense gratitude to many people.
First, my earnest thanks are given to my supervisor, Prof. Li-fang Zhang, for
her detailed comments, constructive feedback, and inspiring ideas during the six
years of study. She is an extremely well-respected teacher. Her sincere
commitment, conscientious working style, and persistent attitude toward her work
have inspired me to devote every effort to do my very best. Her support and
passionate encouragement have kept me strong and motivated in my studies. It
has been my pleasure to be one of her Ph.D. students.
My sincere thanks go to my companions at The University of Hong Kong: Dr.
Sam Ye, Dr. Chen Chen, Dr. TM Yu, Dr. Paul Wong, Mr. Humphrey Lau, Ms. Lin
Yong, Ms. Joan Fan, Ms. Claire Xie, Ms. Penng Ng, and Ms. Sanyin Cheng. All of
them provided me with support, kindness, and encouragement during my
endeavor to complete my Ph.D. I also thank all members of the Faculty of
Education, who provided me with professional instructions and guidance in my
study. My thanks also go to all of the teachers and students who participated in my
research. Without their precious time and input, this research would not have been
completed.
My heartfelt thanks go to many of the important, respected teachers in my
life. Their guidance and support have encouraged me to be a lifelong learner and
good teacher. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Hung Chor-Nam, my secondary school
teacher, who developed my talents and shaped me to be a positive and
hard-working person. He has been the role model for me in my entire career life. I
also thank all of the lecturers in the Hong Kong Institute of Education (Dr. SH
v
Chen, Dr. MK Chin, Dr. Alberto Cruz, Dr. Chung Li, Dr. Eric Tsang, Ms. Karen
Choi, Mr. Kevin Kam, Ms. Fung Lai, and Ms. Joey Wong), especially Miss Lina
Chow, who taught me to work with a serious and persistent attitude and who have
been treating and teaching me like her own daughter. I express my profound
gratitude to Dr. Hensley, who offered me incredible experiences in the U.S. The
love and care from his family made my life in Cedar Falls unforgettable. Special
thanks go to Dr. Michael Chan and Prof. Rex Li from the G. T. College, for your
support, kind consideration, and opportunities to brighten up my career.
I am grateful to my dear friends, who brought me joys and shared my
sorrows throughout these many years. My thanks go to the Lau family (Jason,
Mavis, Harrison, Kwok, and Vino) who have been treating me as their family and
giving me the warmest friendship in the U.S. My thanks also go to 3F friends
(Cherry, Chiu, Coco, Derek, Emily, Icey, Jack, Kenli, KiKi, Mandy, Matt, On, Pok,
Steffie, Vicki, Vincent, Yeti, Yuen), 305 sweeties (Carmen, Jessy, Karen, Semi,
Vicki, Yoki), Albert, Ballball, Bonnie C., Bonnie N., Cally, Gary, Gloria, Gwen,
Kan, Karie, Kit, Kit Bo Bo, Peggy, Rebecca, Samatha, Samson, Viann, Wincy,
Winnie, Yau as well as all colleagues (especially the PE and the MEd teams),
students, and parents from the G. T. College.
Last but not least, I must also pay my very deep obligation and respect to my
family. My deepest thanks are given to my husband, Sun Sing Liu, for his
unconditional love and support, without which, my study could not have been
completed. I am also grateful to my parents, sisters, and grandparents, for their
care, nurture, tolerance, and absolute acceptance of my negative emotions. I thank
them for driving me through all the ups and downs and giving me strength and
endurance to make my dream come true.
vi
Table of Contents
Declaration ............................................................................................................... i
Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................v
Table of Contents .................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables .........................................................................................................xv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................xx
List of Appendices ............................................................................................... xxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................1
1.2 Background of the Research ............................................................................3
1.2.1 Intellectual Styles in Education ...........................................................4
1.2.2 Students’ Development of Career Interests ..........................................7
1.3 Rationale of the Research ................................................................................8
1.3.1 Theoretical Concerns ...........................................................................8
1.3.2 Statistical Concerns ............................................................................10
1.3.3 Contextual Concerns .......................................................................... 11
1.4 Purpose of the Research .................................................................................13
1.5 Significance of the Research..........................................................................14
1.5.1 Theoretical Implications ....................................................................15
1.5.2 Practical Implications ........................................................................15
1.6 Design of the Research ..................................................................................17
1.7 Structure of the Thesis ...................................................................................18
vii
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Theme One: A General Review of Intellectual Styles ...................................19
2.1.1 The Concept of Intellectual Styles .....................................................20
2.1.2 History of Development.....................................................................21
2.1.2.1
Developing different style constructs ................................21
2.1.2.2
Integrating diverse style constructs into general models ...23
2.1.2.3
Examining the nature of intellectual styles ........................24
2.1.3 The Nature of Intellectual Styles .......................................................26
2.1.3.1
Conceptualization of intellectual styles .............................26
2.1.3.2
Controversial issues regarding the nature of intellectual
styles ..................................................................................27
2.1.4 Theory of Thinking Styles: Mental Self-government ........................33
2.1.4.1
The metaphor .....................................................................34
2.1.4.2
Profiles of thinking styles ..................................................35
2.1.4.3
Controversial issues within the context of thinking
styles ...................................................................................36
2.2 Theme Two: Intellectual Styles in Education and in Educational Research:
Further Review of Style Value and Style Malleability ..................................42
2.2.1 Different Preferences for Intellectual Styles in School......................43
2.2.1.1
Teachers’ styles of teaching ...............................................44
2.2.1.2
Students’ preferences for their own styles of learning .......45
2.2.1.3
Preferred intellectual styles from the perspective of
teachers and students .........................................................46
2.2.2 Malleability of Intellectual Styles ......................................................49
2.2.2.1
Intellectual styles are modifiable by teaching and
training ...............................................................................50
2.2.2.2
Intellectual styles are malleable through socialization ......55
viii
2.2.3 Intellectual Styles and Students’ Development of Career Interests ...60
2.2.3.1
Intellectual styles and career interests ...............................61
2.2.3.2
Teaching styles and development of career interests .........63
2.3 Theme Three: Students’ Career Interests Types .............................................66
2.3.1 Description of the Six Career Interest Types .....................................67
2.3.2 A Capsule History of the Theory and the Use of the Self-Directed
Search ................................................................................................69
2.3.3 Career Interest Types in Education and Research ..............................72
2.3.3.1
Career interest types and educational choices ...................71
2.3.3.2
Development of students’ career interests .........................73
2.3.4 New Perspectives on Intellectual Styles and Career Interest Types ..75
2.3.4.1
Students’ styles of learning and their career choices .........76
2.3.4.2
The relationship between thinking styles and career
interest types ......................................................................78
2.4 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................79
2.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................81
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLORY
3.1 Overall Design of the Research .....................................................................86
3.2 Pilot Study: Evaluation of the Inventories .....................................................89
3.2.1
Participants.........................................................................................90
3.2.2
Measures ...........................................................................................91
3.2.3
3.2.2.1
Demographic sheet for teachers and the PTSLI ................91
3.2.2.2
Demographic sheet for students and the PTSTI ................92
Procedures ..........................................................................................93
3.3 Study One: Teachers’ and Students’ Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching
and Learning ..................................................................................................95
3.3.1
Aims of the Study ..............................................................................95
ix
3.3.2
Participants.........................................................................................95
3.3.3
Procedures ..........................................................................................96
3.3.4
Inventories .........................................................................................97
3.3.5
Data Analysis .....................................................................................99
3.4 Study Two: An Experimental Study.............................................................100
3.4.1
Aims of the Study ............................................................................100
3.4.2
Participants.......................................................................................101
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.2.1
Teachers ...........................................................................101
3.4.2.2
Students ............................................................................102
Measures ..........................................................................................102
3.4.3.1
Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II..............................103
3.4.3.2
The Self-Directed Search .................................................103
Design and Procedure ......................................................................104
3.4.4.1
Recruitment ......................................................................104
3.4.4.2
Pre-test for students .........................................................105
3.4.4.3
Teacher training ...............................................................106
3.4.4.4
Instruction ........................................................................ 111
3.4.4.5
Post-test for students ........................................................ 116
3.4.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................... 117
3.5 Study Three: Individual Interviews ............................................................. 118
3.5.1
Aims of the Study ............................................................................ 118
3.5.2
Participants....................................................................................... 119
3.5.3
Interview Questions ......................................................................... 119
3.5.4
Procedures ........................................................................................121
3.5.5
Data Analysis ...................................................................................122
x
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
4.1 Pilot Study....................................................................................................124
4.1.1 Psychometric Properties of the Scales .............................................124
4.1.1.1
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSLI
Scales ...............................................................................124
4.1.1.2
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSTI
Scales ...............................................................................126
4.1.2
Profiles of Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and Students’
Preferred Teaching Styles ................................................................127
4.1.3 Discussion of the Pilot Study ...........................................................129
4.2 Study One.....................................................................................................132
4.2.1 Psychometric Properties of the Scales .............................................132
4.2.1.1
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSLI
Scales ...............................................................................133
4.2.1.2
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSTI
Scales ...............................................................................135
4.2.2 Scale Means of the PTSLI and the PTSTI .......................................138
4.2.2.1
Profile of teachers’ preferred learning styles ...................138
4.2.2.2
Profile of students’ preferred teaching styles...................140
4.3 Study Two ....................................................................................................141
4.3.1 Psychometric Properties of the TSI-R2 scales .................................143
4.3.1.1
Factor structure, scale reliabilities, and test-retest
reliabilities for the TSI-R2 scales (control group) ...........143
4.3.1.2
Factor structure, scale reliabilities, and test-retest
reliabilities for the TSI-R2 scales (experimental group)..145
4.3.2 Experimental Effects on Students’ Learning Styles .........................147
4.3.2.1
MANOVA: analyses on students’ demographic
characteristics with the TSI-R2 scales .............................148
xi
4.3.2.2
Repeated-measures MANOVA: differences between
pre-test and post-test in the control group and in the
experimental group ..........................................................152
4.3.2.3
Independent T-tests: differences in students’ learning
styles between the control and the experimental groups
in the pre-test and in the post-test ....................................153
4.3.2.4
Paired T-tests: changes in learning styles of students in
the control group and in the experimental group .............156
4.3.2.5
Repeated-measures MANOVA analyses and Paired
T-tests: changes in learning styles based on students’
demographic characteristics (separately for the control
and the experimental groups) ...........................................159
4.3.3 Parallel Effects on Students’ Career Interests ..................................185
4.3.3.1
MANOVA: analyses on Students’ demographic
characteristics with the SDS scales ..................................186
4.3.3.2
ANOVA analyses on Students’ career interests types ......188
4.3.3.3
Independent t-tests on students’ career interest types ......189
CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
5.1 Changes in Students’ Learning Styles ..........................................................194
5.1.1 Changes in Learning Styles of Students in the Control Group ........195
5.1.1.1
Increased use of the executive and conservative styles ...195
5.1.1.2
Increased use of the local style ........................................197
5.1.1.3
Increased use of the external style ...................................199
xii
5.1.2 Changes in Learning Styles of Students in the Experimental
Group ...............................................................................................200
5.1.2.1
Increased use of the hierarchical style .............................201
5.1.2.2
Increased use of the judicial and liberal styles ................202
5.1.2.3
Increased use of the external style ...................................204
5.2 Development of Career Interests .................................................................206
5.2.1
Students in the Control Group .........................................................206
5.2.2
Students in the Experimental Group ................................................208
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
6.1 Are Thinking Styles Value-laden? ...............................................................214
6.1.1 Teachers’ Preferences for Students’ Learning Styles .......................214
6.1.2 Students’ Preferences for Teachers’ Teaching Styles .......................216
6.2 Are Intellectual Styles Malleable? ...............................................................218
6.2.1 Intellectual Styles Are Generally Stable Over Time ........................219
6.2.2
Intellectual Styles Are Malleable Under the Stylistic Demands of
Instructional Environments ..............................................................222
6.2.2.1
The creativity-generating instructional environment
dominated by Type I styles (experimental group) ...........224
6.2.2.2
The traditional instructional environment dominated
by Type II styles (control group) .....................................231
6.2.3
The Development of Learning Styles Are Socialized by the
Demographic Characteristics of Students ........................................238
6.2.3.1
Gender ..............................................................................239
6.2.3.2
Students’ satisfaction with instructional environment .....242
6.2.3.3
Students’ perceptions of teachers’ ability.........................245
6.2.3.4
Educational qualifications of students’ mothers ..............248
xiii
6.3 Do Intellectual Styles Contribute to Students’ Development of Career
Interests? ......................................................................................................250
6.3.1 Students’ Development of A Wider Range of Career Interests ........251
6.3.2
Students’ Development of the Social and Conventional Types of
Career Interests ................................................................................253
6.3.3 Students’ Development of the Enterprising Type of Career
Interest .............................................................................................255
6.4 Continuous Development of Students’ Type I Learning Styles and A Wider
Range of Career Interests .............................................................................258
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................262
7.2 Contributions ...............................................................................................263
7.3 Implications .................................................................................................265
7.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................267
7.5 Future Research Directions ..........................................................................270
xiv
List of Tables
Table 4.1
Factor Structure and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSLI Scales ....125
Table 4.2
Factor Structure and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSTI Scales ....127
Table 4.3
Factor Structure for the PTSLI Scales .............................................134
Table 4.4
Scale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSLI
Scales ...............................................................................................135
Table 4.5
Factor Structure for the PTSTI Scales .............................................136
Table 4.6
Scale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSTI
Scales ...............................................................................................137
Table 4.7
Factor Structure, Scale Reliabilities, and Test-Retest Reliabilities
for the TSI-R2 scales (Control Group) ............................................144
Table 4.8
Factor Structure, Scale Reliabilities, and Test-Retest Reliabilities
for the TSI-R2 scales (Experimental Group) ...................................146
Table 4.9a MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
TSI-R2 Scales in the pre-test (Control Group) ................................149
Table 4.9b
MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
TSI-R2 Scales in the Post-test (Control Group) ..............................150
Table 4.10a MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
TSI-R2 Scales in the Pre-test (Experimental Group).......................151
Table 4.10b MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
TSI-R2 Scales in the Post-test (Experimental Group) .....................152
Table 4.11
Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Groups ..............................................................................................153
Table 4.12
Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Groups in the
Pre-test .............................................................................................154
Table 4.13
Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Groups in the
Post-test ............................................................................................155
xv
Table 4.14 Paired T-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the TSI-R2 scales
(Control Group) ...............................................................................157
Table 4.15 Paired T-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the TSI-R2 scales
(Experimental Group)......................................................................158
Table 4.16a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Gender (Control Group)...................................................................160
Table 4.16b Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender in the
Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group) .......................................161
Table 4.16c Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Control
Group) ..............................................................................................162
Table 4.17a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Gender (Experimental Group) .........................................................162
Table 4.17b Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender in the
Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group) .............................163
Table 4.17c Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Experimental
Group) ..............................................................................................164
Table 4.18a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Satisfaction with Instructional Environment (Control
Group) ..............................................................................................165
Table 4.18b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’
Satisfaction with Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and
the Post-test (Control Group) ...........................................................166
Table 4.18c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Satisfaction with Instructional Environment in the
Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group) .......................................167
Table 4.18d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Satisfaction with
Instructional Environment (Control Group) ....................................168
xvi
Table 4.19a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Satisfaction with Instructional Environment
(Experimental Group) ......................................................................169
Table 4.19b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’
Satisfaction with Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Experimental Group) .......................................................169
Table 4.19c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Satisfaction with Instructional Environment in the
Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group) .............................170
Table 4.19d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Satisfaction with
Instructional Environment (Experimental Group) ...........................171
Table 4.20a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Perceived Teachers’ Ability (Control Group) ..................................172
Table 4.20b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’
Perceived Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test
(Control Group) ...............................................................................173
Table 4.20c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Perceived Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Control Group).................................................................174
Table 4.20d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived Teachers’
Ability (Control Group) ...................................................................174
Table 4.21a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Perceived Teachers’ Ability (Experimental Group) .........................175
Table 4.21b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’
Perceived Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test
(Experimental Group) ......................................................................176
xvii
Table 4.21c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Students’ Perceived Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Experimental Group) .......................................................177
Table 4.21d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived Teachers’
Ability (Experimental Group) ..........................................................177
Table 4.22a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Mother’s Educational Qualification (Control Group)......................178
Table 4.22b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s
Educational Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test
(Control Group) ...............................................................................179
Table 4.22c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Mother’s Educational Qualification in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Control Group).................................................................179
Table 4.22d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s
Educational Qualification (Control Group) .....................................180
Table 4.23a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Mother’s Educational Qualification (Experimental Group) ............181
Table 4.23b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s
Educational Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test
(Experimental Group) ......................................................................182
Table 4.23c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on
Mother’s Educational Qualification in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Experimental Group) .......................................................182
Table 4.23d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s
Educational Qualification (Experimental Group) ............................183
Table 4.24 MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
SDS Scales (Control Group) ............................................................187
xviii
Table 4.25 MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the
SDS Scales (Experimental Group) ..................................................188
Table 4.26 One-way ANOVAs on the SDS Scales Based on Groups................189
Table 4.27 Independent T-tests on the SDS Scales Based on Groups with
Students’ Demographic Characteristics ...........................................191
xix
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
A Hexagonal Model for Interpreting the Person-environment
Relationships ......................................................................................68
Figure 2.2
Research Framework .........................................................................80
Figure 3.1
Research plan for all four studies and specific events of Study
Two. ....................................................................................................89
Figure 4.1 Line Chart for Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and Students’
Preferred Teaching Styles (Pilot Study) ...........................................128
Figure 4.2 Line Chart for Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and Students’
Preferred Teaching Styles (Study One) ............................................139
xx
Lists of Appendices
Appendix A
Sample items from the PTSLI and their Chinese translations .....305
Appendix B
Sample items from the PTSTI and their Chinese translations .....306
Appendix C
Sample items from the TSI-R2 and their Chinese translations ....307
Appendix D
Sample items from the SDS and their Chinese translations ........308
Appendix E
Sample reports for teachers and students after the pre-test .........310
Appendix F
Sample activity from the training workshop................................312
Appendix G
Sample report for class observation .............................................315
Appendix H
Sample reports for teachers and students after the post-test ........321
Appendix I
Exposition of the post-test report .................................................322
xxi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the research. It consists of seven
sections: (a) statement of the problem, (b) background of the research, (c)
rationale of the research, (d) purpose of the research, (e) significance of the
research, (f) design of the research, and (g) structure of the thesis.
1.1
Statement of the Problem
Intellectual style is an encompassing term that refers to people’s preferred
ways of processing information and dealing with tasks (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005).
Throughout the development of the field of intellectual styles, diverse
terminologies, such as cognitive styles, thinking styles, learning styles, and
teaching styles, have been proposed to describe and explain the behavior and
performance of people in work, career, teaching, and learning (Curry, 1991; Miller,
1987; Riding & Rayner, 1998). Researchers were interested in investigate the
influence of intellectual styles on various aspects of educational activities,
including teaching (Chen, Shuk, Wei, & Liu, 2011; Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, &
Gielen, 2006; Zhang, 2008), learning (Choi, Lee, & Jung, 2008; C. Evans, Cools,
& Charlesworth, 2010; Knight, 2010), and students’ psychosocial development
(Zhang, 2004a, 2004b; Zhang & Fan, 2007). Two of the long-standing
controversial issues regarding the nature of intellectual styles concerns: (a) the
issue of style value, whether or not intellectual styles are value-laden,
value-differentiated, or value-free; and (b) the issue of style malleability, whether
or not styles are malleable and can be socialized.
In the past, teachers assessed students based on how well they performed on
tests and how much they were capable of learning in class. However, the reasons
behind student differences in academic performance or behavior often were not
completely understood. Intellectual styles, being one of the individual-difference
1
variables, can serve as an additional variable in evaluating performance or
behavior in both academic (Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002; Riding, Grimley,
Dahraei, & Banner, 2003; Zhang, 2003a, 2007c) and non-academic settings
(Allinson, Armstrong, & Hayes, 2001; Kirwin, 1999). Research findings have
frequently demonstrated that teachers and students prefer some types of
intellectual styles over other styles when engaging in educational activities
(Betoret, 2007; Klinger, 2006; Zhang, Huang, & Zhang, 2005). Further, students’
intellectual styles (i.e., students’ learning styles) can vary as a function of learning
environments, teachers’ intellectual styles (i.e., teachers’ teaching styles), and
other personal and environmental factors (Alborzi & Ostovar, 2007; Ennis, Chen,
& Fernandez-Balboa. Juan. Miguel, 1991; Ennis & Lazarus, 1990; He, 2006;
Zhang, 2007c).
Specifically, although findings have frequently identified that styles are
largely value-laden, they are also at times value-differentiated, depending on the
specific context (situation and timing). However, why certain styles are more
valued than others at a specific time and in a specific situation have not been
addressed adequately in the literature. Moreover, cross-sectional research studies
have not provided robust empirical data on the issue of style malleability;
therefore, whether or not styles can be deliberately trained and modified needs
more empirical support. Empirical data from experimental and longitudinal
studies that provide an understanding of these issues would therefore be of great
value.
As has been reported in the field of career development, students’ career
interests are another important individual characteristic influencing the
performance
of
teachers
and
students.
Taking
into
account
the
person-environment relationship, research efforts on students’ career interests
have focused on providing educational guidance and career counseling to assist
students in choosing a career that corresponds to their interests, values, skills,
2
and abilities (Farmer, Rotella, Anderson, & Wardrop, 1998; Leung & Hou, 2001).
However, the ways in which students develop career interests that are compatible
with their personal characteristics, such as learning styles; have not been the
focus of scholarly investigation, especially at the secondary school level. Such
investigations should be the core of research related to secondary students’ career
development using longitudinal and experimental designs.
Teachers’ effectiveness in diversifying their instruction and assessment is
important in the educational process, so that students can study and grow
appropriately. Therefore, understanding the impact of teachers’ intellectual styles
on teaching, as well as applying this understanding to the development of
students’ learning styles and career interests, is important in educational research.
The present research investigates the impact of teaching styles on students’
development of creativity-generating (Type I) learning styles and on their career
interests and provides insight into the role of intellectual styles in enhancing
students’ learning and development.
1.2
Background of the Research
The aim of education is not only to deliver knowledge but also to promote
healthy minds, to develop career interests, and to facilitate the growth of
individuality (Entwistle, 1981; Zhang, 2004a). For many decades, dominated by
traditional teaching methods, teachers controlled students’ learning processes and
were therefore responsible for providing a carefully planned and clearly
sequenced learning environment (e.g., curriculum) to facilitate the learning
process (Stillwell & Willgoose, 1997). To ensure that education is beneficial to
students, the learning environment should be planned in relation to the values,
needs, and interests of students and should also take into account individual
differences (e.g., styles, values, and interests) among teachers and students as they
participate in the educational process (Jewett, Bain, & Ennis, 1995; Renzulli &
3
Dai, 2001). In this regard, a dynamic relationship should be established among
teachers, students, and the learning environment whereby teachers can construct
learning environments that aim to develop students’ particular intellectual styles
and career interests (Hytner, 1988; Korthauer & Koubek, 1994; Lin, Liu, & Yuan,
2001; Loh, 1990; Swindler, 2008). However, very often, the ways that teachers set
up learning environments (i.e., curricula, learning tasks, instructional methods,
and assessment strategies) fall short of students’ abilities and needs. As a result,
students may not be equipped with the skills or acquire the types of knowledge
that are necessary for engaging in positive learning experiences, being
autonomous in their learning, and making educational or career choices.
To optimize students’ learning outcomes, teachers should, on the one hand,
be aware of what students are interested in learning and how they prefer to learn
such information, and on the other hand, construct an appropriate learning
environment, be flexible in modifying that environment, and be aware of the
methods they choose (i.e., their teaching styles) to accommodate the diversity of
students in the classroom (Cothran & Ennis, 1998; Riding & Rayner, 1998; Zhang
& Sternberg, 2006). Thus, learning environments, teaching styles, and learning
styles are three essential elements that influence students’ educational outcomes.
In this respect, it is advantageous to understand the various educational
environments of teachers and students, as well as their preferred ways of teaching
and learning in the educational process. To extend the understanding of how
intellectual styles affect the way that teachers teach and students learn, the
following two sub-sections discuss (a) intellectual styles in education and (b)
students’ development of career interests.
1.2.1
Intellectual Styles in Education
In an attempt to generate a clearer view of the nature of intellectual styles,
researchers have endeavored to investigate the many different ways that
4
intellectual styles are linked to various personal-environmental factors and the
impact of intellectual styles on students’ learning and development, and
specifically on students’ development of particular types of learning styles and
career interests.
Findings in the literature have addressed two important issues regarding the
nature of intellectual styles. One concerns the question of whether or not
intellectual styles are value-laden, value-differentiated, or value-free. The other
considers whether or not styles are malleable and can be trained and socialized.
Research has indicated that some styles (i.e., creativity-generating styles) tend to
be related to better performance or higher ability measures (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 1993). For example, in educational settings, research (Ford & Chen,
2000; Kagan, 1989) has shown that people prefer such styles as field
independence and reflectivity, which suggests that styles are value-laden. Other
findings (Messick, 1994; Riding, 1997) have demonstrated that styles relate to
human performance differently according to specific tasks and situations. For
example, cases studied in Hong Kong schools have revealed that both students
and teachers often value intellectual styles that are creativity-generating (Zhang &
He, 2003; Zhang, et al., 2005; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001), but that
norm-conforming types of intellectual styles are frequently related to better
academic outcomes. According to Biggs (1995), the ‘backwash effect’ forces
students to use those intellectual styles that help them to attain good academic
results. As a result, the ways that teachers teach and students learn are not
determined by their preferences for teaching and learning styles, but determined
by the way in which students are assessed by the educational system (Zhang, Fu,
& Jiao, 2008).
Furthermore, empirical findings have suggested that styles can be socialized
by various personal and environmental factors (Fan & Ye, 2007; Opdenakker &
Damme, 2006; Riding & Grimley, 1999; Zhang & Higgins, 2008). In the literature,
5
some experimental studies were conducted to encourage students to develop
particular intellectual styles. Klinger (2006) and Fan (2006) conducted
experimental studies to investigate changes in students’ intellectual styles through
learning in a web-based environment. Klinger (2006) designed an online platform
to examine whether or not students in a psychology course could develop a deep
learning approach by acquiring online feedback from peers and teachers.
Although detailed information in the online dialogue demonstrated some evidence
to support the experimental effects on students’ intellectual styles (i.e., students
developed a deeper learning approach), the same result was not found in students’
self-reporting on the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ; Biggs, 1987). Fan (2006)
conducted a similar study to examine whether or not a hypermedia learning
environment could help students enrolled in a psychology course to develop more
creativity-generating types of intellectual styles. Fan’s findings partly supported
his hypothesis by demonstrating that a hypermedia learning environment could
promote the use of intellectual styles that are more cognitively complex and
creativity generating. Findings from these two studies showed that students
developed particular intellectual styles through learning in a web-based
environment. However, more empirical findings from experimental study are
necessary to provide a more defensible stance for the contention that styles are
malleable in nature and that they can be trained.
Research aimed at investigating these two issues has demonstrated the
potential for influencing teachers’ teaching and students’ development in different
ways (Fan & Ye, 2007; Harrison, 1997; Kanske, 1998). It is reasonable to expect
that teachers may prefer students to use particular types of intellectual styles in
learning, whereas students may value specific types of intellectual styles among
teachers. It is also expected that teachers’ intellectual styles in teaching will affect
students’ intellectual styles in learning.
6
1.2.2
Students’ Development of Career Interests
Developing a strong, clear vocational goal is of great concern to many
adolescents, especially those students who have reached the point where careers
and job searches are becoming important (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Sternberg,
1997). Occasionally students run into problems with unrealistic career choices
that have been glamorized by society and are attainable only by the very few, such
as acting, professional athletics, and other celebrity occupations (Evans, Forney,
& Guido-DiBrito, 1998). These problems can be attributed to the fact that students
at this stage are often confused about where their interests in life really lie and
what they are capable of achieving. Adolescents tend to separate their own
identity from reality. In other words, students have not yet established a true sense
of personal identity, which is the key connection between childhood and
adulthood and a necessary component in developing real interests in a future
career. According to the two most influential theories of adolescent psychosocial
development, Erikson (1950) and Chickering (1969) indicated that students’
establishment of identity allows them to develop realistic career goals that are
consistent with their personal interests. Thus, in developing students’ specific
vocational goals or career interests, the teachers’ planning of developmental
programs is important (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Further, empirical findings have demonstrated that Holland’s (1994) career
interest types are associated with intellectual styles in a predictive way (Fruyt &
Mervielde, 1997; Okabayashi & Torrance, 1984; Zhang, 2000a, 2004b; Zhang &
Fan, 2007). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that teachers’ intellectual styles have
an impact on both students’ learning styles and their career interests because
teachers’ styles of teaching influence their ways of constructing learning
environments that facilitate students’ development of learning styles and particular
types of career interest.
7
Although many cross-sectional studies have reported that intellectual styles
are value-laden (Zhang, 2008; Zhang, et al., 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2000) and
malleable (Bold, 2008; Fan, 2006; Walker et al., 2010), only a few experimental
and longitudinal studies have been conducted. Given the lack of experimental
studies and longitudinal investigations on the issue of style malleability, further
empirical exploration into whether or not intellectual styles are value-laden and
malleable is needed to shed further light on how to develop students’ specific
learning styles and particular career interests. The present research uses an
experimental and a longitudinally designed study to further examine the nature of
intellectual styles to determine whether or not some styles are more preferred than
other styles and to examine the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning
styles and on their career interests.
1.3
Rationale of the Research
Before conducting the present research, the theoretical, statistical, and
contextual aspects of the research were carefully considered. The theoretical
aspect concerns the nature of intellectual styles. The statistical aspect involves the
research design. The contextual aspect explores past and present academic
structure in secondary schools in Hong Kong.
1.3.1
Theoretical Concerns
Intellectual styles have been cited as one of the most important components
influencing the performance of teachers and students in the educational process
(Drysdale, Ross, & Schulz, 2001; Riding, 2005; Yeh, 2007). Research has (a)
explored the relationship of intellectual styles to several personal variables among
both teachers and students (Cummings III, 1995; Fan & Ye, 2007; Riding &
Grimley, 1999; Yang & Lin, 2004), (b) investigated the impact of environment on
intellectual styles (Broad, Matthews, & McDonale, 2004; Choi, et al., 2008; Liu,
8
2007), and (c) examined the role of intellectual styles in the teaching-learning
process (Betoret, 2007; Ennis, et al., 1991; Opdenakker & Damme, 2006). Based
on the finding that the construction of an appropriate learning environment is the
partial consequence of intellectual styles employed by teachers, teachers’
preferred ways of teaching could be perceived as one of the most influential
components of a learning environment. Therefore, examining teachers’ intellectual
styles in teaching may provide useful information to facilitate students’ learning
and development through the construction of a learning environment in which
particular types of teaching styles are employed. To understand the practical
applications and implications of styles in education, the nature of intellectual
styles should be explored.
Over the past decade, the Threefold Model of Intellectual Styles (Zhang &
Sternberg, 2005) has generated considerable research that addresses three
controversial issues regarding the nature of intellectual styles: the value issue, the
malleability issue, and the overlap issue. However, it has been observed that
research on the nature of styles has not provided sufficient data on the issues of
style value and style malleability. Empirical findings have demonstrated that
styles are value-laden, meaning that some styles are perceived as being more
positive because they carry more adaptive value than others (Choi, et al., 2008;
Meneely & Portillo, 2005; Zhang, 2000a, 2002b, 2002c). Other evidence has
indicated that the value of styles is dependent on the specific tasks and situations
(Bernardo, et al., 2002; Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Drysdale, et al., 2001;
Volet, Renshaw, & Tietzel, 1994). However, having observed that the ways that
teachers teach and students learn might be different from their preferences for
teaching and learning styles, teachers often fail to create learning environments
that can facilitate students’ acquisition of positive learning experiences. In this
regard, understanding the types of intellectual styles teachers and students value in
the teaching-learning process is essential to designing the kind of learning
9
environment that is most beneficial to students’ academic outcomes. Although
cross-sectional investigations have supported the contention that styles are
malleable, they cannot prove that styles can be modified through specific training.
Therefore, to provide a more defensible stance on the issue of style malleability,
additional experimental studies are required to examine the role of styles in
teachers’ teaching and students’ learning.
Teachers, students, and learning environments are known to be the three
major components in education, and an interactive relationship established among
the three allows teachers to create learning environments that exert a powerful
influence on various aspects of student development and performance (Evans, et
al., 1998; Renzulli & Dai, 2001). Without an understanding of the nature of
intellectual styles, it is difficult to understand the practical applications and
implications of styles in the teaching-learning process. Therefore, it is
advantageous to address more explicitly the nature of intellectual styles,
especially the issues of style value and malleability, to understand their impact on
the educational process and outcome. Thus, the present research explores teaching
styles and learning styles that teachers and students prefer in the educational
process and examines the impact of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning
styles and career interests. This research will be mutually beneficial to the
investigation of the nature of intellectual styles by generating a clearer view on
the issues of style value and style malleability.
1.3.2
Statistical Concerns
This research employs a mixture of quantitative (Studies One and Two) and
qualitative (Study Three) research approaches. Study One is exploratory in nature.
It aims to confirm that conducting an experimental study is appropriate in Study
Two. The aim of Study Two is to investigate the causal relationship between
teaching styles and learning styles. Thus, Study Two is essentially undertaken
10
within an experimental design to systematically manipulate teachers’ teaching
styles and observe the changes in students’ learning styles. The experiment is
designed to answer these questions: “Within the control/experimental group, do
students’ learning styles change from the pre-test to the post-test after being
instructed with Type I/II styles for one semester? What are the differences
between the control and the experimental groups before and after the
experiment?”
Although an experimental design is advantageous for exploring the effects of
training on teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning styles, the design
cannot explain how and why those styles undergo continuous and adaptive
changes (Dencey & Reidy, 2007). To acquire an in-depth understanding of the
reason behind these changes, a qualitative study (Study Three) is a necessary
complement to the quantitative findings (Baumgartner, Strong, & Hensley, 2006).
Accordingly, the present research first investigates the impact of teaching styles
on students’ learning styles and career interests by employing an experimental
approach in Study Two. Then, in Study Three, detailed interviews are conducted
to explore the effects of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning styles, and
how and why students’ learning styles undergo continuous and adaptive changes.
1.3.3
Contextual Concerns
The education system in Hong Kong has been known for its
examination-oriented academic structure in which assessments and examinations
have rewarded students who reproduced the desired knowledge. Owing to the
pressures of examinations, the ways that teachers taught and students learned were
determined by the ways that students were assessed. Therefore, the ultimate goal
of teaching and learning was to attain high academic achievement measured by
test scores. For many decades in Hong Kong, direct teaching, in which teachers
instructed and students received information and knowledge, became a commonly
11
used pedagogic process. Thus, teachers and students taught and learned in a direct
way that was instrumental in transmitting necessary knowledge and information to
pass the examinations. However, in Hong Kong’s new senior secondary
curriculum that was implemented in 2009, students began to be challenged by a
variety of information, subjects, and kinds of assessment. For example, Liberal
Studies is a newly added core subject in the academic structure that requires
students to think, create, criticize, analyze, and evaluate in the learning process.
However, these skills were not necessary for students in the former education
system in Hong Kong, and some teachers continue to use traditional methods to
teach Liberal Studies. It is believed that teaching and learning in a
norm-conforming way might not equip students with the skills and knowledge to
confront the challenges in Liberal Studies as well as in other subjects in the new
curriculum. This significant change in the academic system could have
compounding effects on teachers’ teaching and students’ learning. In this regard,
this research takes Liberal Studies as the practical base of the experimental study
to investigate how teaching and learning can be modified to suit the new
challenging curriculum.
The former education system in Hong Kong required junior secondary
students to make their educational choices before being promoted to high school,
and thus their choices of academic track (i.e., either science-oriented or
arts-oriented subjects) shaped their future career paths. However, junior secondary
students found it difficult to make such an influential decision without having
adequate support from teachers or schools (Leung & Hou, 2001). In addition,
career education and preparation for working life were not seen as priorities in the
secondary school education. Therefore, teachers were urged to create an
appropriate learning environment and be flexible in modifying that environment
to facilitate students’ positive learning experiences. Interestingly, most of the
educational research, especially in the field of intellectual styles and career
12
development, has been conducted at the level of higher education (Balasooriya,
Hughes, & Toohey, 2009; Bold, 2008; Fox, Stevenson, Connelly, Duff, & Dunlop,
2010). However, the research findings generalized from higher education might
not reflect the actual practices at the secondary education level. Moreover,
students’ choices of majors in college and their future career paths are dependent
on their results of the entrance examination (i.e., the Hong Kong Diploma of
Secondary Education Examination). Thus, to better understand the impact of
teaching on students’ learning and development of career interests, research
should be conducted at the secondary school level. Therefore, this research
focuses on samples of secondary school teachers and students in the Hong Kong
educational system.
1.4
Purpose of the Research
The major purpose of the present research is to investigate the nature of
intellectual styles, in particular, (a) if styles are value-laden and (b) if styles are
malleable. This purpose is achieved through exploring the types of intellectual
styles that teachers and students prefer in the teaching-learning process and
examining the impact of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning styles and
on their career interests. This research has three objectives.
The first is to examine whether or not styles are value-laden,
value-differentiated, or value-free. An exploratory study (Study One) was
designed to identify the types of teaching styles that students prefer among
teachers and the types of learning styles that teachers prefer students to use in
their learning. Teachers completed the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning
Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b) that assessed their preferences for students’
intellectual styles in learning. Students completed the Preferred Thinking Styles in
Teaching Inventory (PTSTI, Zhang, 2003b) that measured their preferences for
teachers’ intellectual styles in teaching. The results of Study One were used to
13
determine whether or not it would be appropriate to conduct an experimental
study (Study Two) that aimed at developing students’ Type I learning styles and
broadening the range of their career interests.
The second objective was to examine whether or not intellectual styles are
malleable and can be trained. Study Two (an experimental study) was designed to
train teachers to use Type I intellectual styles in their teaching and to determine
whether or not their students could develop Type I intellectual styles in their
learning (assuming that students and teachers prefer Type I intellectual styles in
the education process). Study Two also explores the parallel effects of teaching
styles on students’ development of career interests and on broadening the range of
their career interests, which is the third objective. To achieve these objectives, an
experimental study was designed to examine the impact of teaching styles on
students’ learning styles and on their career interests. The experiment consisted of
four stages: pre-test for students, training workshop for teachers, instruction, and
post-test for students. Following Study Two, a qualitative study (Study Three) was
conducted to obtain detailed information from interviews, which were used to
explore how and why students’ learning styles underwent adaptive changes. It was
further used to investigate the ways in which students developed and broadened
particular types of career interests. In Study Three, students from the experimental
and control groups were selected to participate in interviews based on the criteria
described in section 3.5 Study Three: Individual Interviews.
1.5
Significance of the Research
This research examines three different aspects of intellectual styles: (a) the
types of teaching styles that students prefer among teachers and the types of
learning styles that teachers prefer among their students, (b) the impact of
teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning styles, and (c) such impact on
students’ development of particular career interests. This research has both
14
theoretical and practical implications. Results from this research provide empirical
justification for the issues of style value and style malleability regarding the
nature of intellectual styles. It also provides suggestions to teachers in enhancing
students’ learning and development.
1.5.1
Theoretical Implications
This research provides initial empirical data concerning the reliability and
validity of the PTSLI and the PTSTI among teachers and students in secondary
schools. The results may further support the contention that intellectual styles are
value-laden, demonstrating that Type I intellectual styles of learning are preferred
by teachers and that such styles of teaching are preferred by students. Equally
important, having employed a combination of experimental and longitudinal
designs, this research can produce valid findings to support the view that
intellectual styles are malleable, that is, they are not static and unchangeable. It
was predicted that teachers using Type I intellectual styles in teaching would
develop students’ Type I intellectual styles in learning. If the prediction is
supported, it would show that teachers’ ways of teaching have a direct impact on
students’ preferred ways of learning and on development of their career interests.
The detailed information obtained from interviews help to confirm from the
students’ perspective that teachers’ Type I teaching styles can facilitate their
development of Type I learning styles and particular career interests.
1.5.2
Practical Implications
If it is proven that styles are both value-laden and malleable, this research
would have at least three practical implications for teachers and students. The first
is to equip teachers with more information and knowledge of the practical uses of
intellectual styles in the educational process. With such information, teachers can
become more adept at selecting learning materials, designing instructional
15
approaches, and developing assessment strategies; this help them to create
learning environments or develop curricula that allow students to demonstrate
their strengths and achieve a more successful learning experience. Furthermore,
empirical findings have shown that Type I intellectual styles are consistently
associated with positive human attributes such as higher self-esteem, higher levels
of critical thinking, and more creative behavior (Hendry et al., 2005; Torres &
Cano, 1995; Yang & Lin, 2004). Encouraging the use of Type I intellectual styles
in teaching may be an effective way of fostering students’ Type I intellectual
styles in learning, and it is also likely that teachers could facilitate students’
holistic development. For example, students could widen the range of their career
interests so that they are able to choose from a variety of careers.
Second, as teachers reflect on the ways that they teach and the ways that they
prefer students to learn, they become aware of students’ learning styles and their
expectations regarding various curricular materials and teaching styles. In this way,
teachers can accept students with their diversities and differences and be flexible
in reformulating their curricula (materials, instructional methods, assessment
strategies) so as to communicate effectively and to avoid unconscious bias against
any particular student or group.
The third implication applies to students, nurturing in them an understanding
of themselves, particularly in the areas of learning styles and career interests.
Students will then be more skillful in identifying their educational interests with
regard to the choice of university majors and of career interests. Additionally, with
an awareness of the types of teaching styles they prefer that their teachers use, the
students will be able to express their expectations to teachers and ask them for
more career information on areas they are interested in. Students can also
consciously develop their own styles of learning.
16
1.6
Design of the Research
The research employed a combination of experimental and longitudinal
designs and was composed of one pilot study and three main studies. The pilot
study was intended to evaluate the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning
Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b) and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching
Inventory (PTSTI, Zhang, 2003b) that were subsequently used in Study One. In
the pilot study, teachers responded to the PTSLI and students responded to the
PTSTI.
Study One was exploratory in nature. Secondary school teachers and students
were invited to participate. Consistent with the pilot study, the students responded
to the PTSTI to indicate their preferences for teachers’ teaching styles, and the
PTSLI was used to identify the teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles.
Study Two was experimental in nature and examined the impact of teaching
styles on students’ learning styles and career interests. Data were collected for one
semester. Teachers in the experimental group enrolled in a training program that
included a 4-hour training workshop, an instruction period for one semester, a
consultation meeting, and a class observation. Teachers in the control group
continued their normal teaching practices. In the pre-test and post-test, students
completed the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2, Sternberg, Wagner,
& Zhang, 2007). At the time of the post-test, students also completed the
Self-Directed Search (SDS, Holland, 1994) that was used to determine whether or
not those in the experimental group demonstrated particular types of career
interest or showed a broader range of such interests.
Study Three was qualitative in nature. It aimed at collecting comprehensive
information on the impact of teaching styles on students’ intellectual styles in
learning. Several criteria were used to select students for the experimental and
control groups to participate in an interview. Questions were designed to
understand from the students’ perspective how students’ learning styles and career
17
interests were modified in the educational process.
1.7
Structure of the Thesis
This thesis consists of seven chapters, each focusing on different concerns: (a)
introduction, (b) literature review, (c) methodology, (d) quantitative findings, (e)
qualitative findings, (f) discussion, and (g) conclusions. Chapter 1 lays the ground
work for the research; it introduces the statement of the problem, background
information, the rationale of the research, the purpose of the research, the
significance of the research, the research design, and the structure of the thesis.
Chapter 2 reviews the literature from the fields of intellectual styles and career
interests, particularly the theoretical foundation of this research and relevant
empirical findings from the past studies. Based on an extensive review of
literature, this chapter also presents the framework and proposes the research
questions. Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in each study, including
sampling, procedures, instruments, and approaches to data analysis. Chapter 4
focuses on the quantitative findings obtained in the pilot study, Study One, and
Study Two. The qualitative data collected in Study Three are reported in Chapter 5.
Chapter 6 discusses the findings of all three studies. Finally, conclusions,
implications, limitations, and future research directions are presented in Chapter
7.
18
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The present research examines the impact of teaching styles on students’
learning styles and on their career interests. This chapter is composed of three
themes that provide an overview of related literature to lay out the groundwork for
this research. Theme one gives a general view of intellectual styles, including the
concept and nature of intellectual styles, as well as the history of development of
intellectual styles. Theme two discusses intellectual styles in education and in
educational research, which further focuses on the issues of style value and style
malleability regarding the nature of intellectual styles. Theme three focuses on
empirical work in relation to students’ development of career interests. Once
theme three has been covered, research questions and hypotheses are discussed,
and a theoretical framework is proposed.
2.1
Theme One - A General Review of Intellectual Styles
There is no single best way in teaching and learning. Frequently, the same
teaching method is effective for some students, but might be ineffective for others
(Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Even though students have the
same learning abilities, some might perform better than others. Grigorenko and
Sternberg (1995) believed that these individual differences appearing in the
teaching-learning process were the consequence of the kinds of styles employed
by teachers and students, in addition to their abilities to teach or learn. Thus,
intellectual styles have served as an alternative variable in evaluating students’
and teachers’ differences of performance in the various educational activities.
This theme provides a general view of intellectual styles. In particular, it
focuses on four aspects: (1) the concepts of styles, (2) the capsule history of the
development of styles literature; (3) the nature of intellectual styles; and (4) the
theory of mental self-government and the nature of thinking styles.
19
2.1.1
The Concept of Intellectual Styles
‘Intellectual style’ is a general term that encompasses the meaning of all style
constructs in the literature, referring to people’s preferred ways of processing
information and dealing with tasks, among which thinking styles, cognitive styles,
and learning styles predominate in the literature (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006).
Zhang and Sternberg (2006) mentioned that intellectual styles influence various
kinds of human activities in daily life, such as teaching and learning. Riding and
Rayner (1998) observed that teachers and students had different styles of learning
and that such differences greatly affected their behavior and performance in
school activities. For example, as empirical findings have indicated, some
teachers preferred to teach in a norm-conforming way, whereas others tended to
integrate creative elements into their teaching. Thus, applying intellectual styles in
the education process shows teachers’ and students’ preferred ways of managing
educational activities and utilizing their abilities in accomplishing such activities
as teaching and learning.
Although intellectual styles represent fairly fixed, in-built characteristics of
individuals (Riding & Cheema, 1991), this does not mean that styles are not
changeable. It is worth noting that the effects of styles on performance will vary
across tasks and situations. People are flexible in employing styles that they feel
comfortable with and find effective. Even so, one could employ styles that fit the
tasks and situations, but the same styles may not be suitable for other
circumstances. Thus, styles might need to be modified to match the stylistic
demands of particular tasks and specific situations. In this regard, studies of the
nature of styles (whether styles are value-laden or value-free and whether styles
represent traits or states) are important in understanding how intellectual styles
can be applied in educational contexts, and how teachers and students may be
flexible in adjusting their styles when adapting to a variety of activities. For
example, teachers modify their intellectual styles in teaching to design an
20
instructional environment that facilitates students’ development of particular types
of learning styles and career interests.
Previous findings from research on styles have provided a sound platform for
researchers to investigate or empirically test intellectual styles. Research findings
in this field have enabled scholars and educators to understand how intellectual
styles make a difference in the teaching-learning process. To understand how
styles can be effectively applied in educational contexts, it is important to be
aware of the nature of intellectual styles and their impact on teachers and students.
To comprehend the history of development of styles literature is the first step. In
the following section, the history of the literature on styles is reviewed.
2.1.2
History of Development
The seminal idea of ‘style’ was rooted in Jung’s (1923) theory of
psychological types, formally introduced by Alloport (1937) to identify the
consistent differences and distinctive types of human behavior. Since then, the
concept of styles has drawn the attention of many psychologists, and volumes of
published material on styles have been steadily accumulated. In reviewing these
materials, it was observed that the focus of the literature has experienced three
main shifts: (1) developing different style constructs, (2) integrating diverse style
constructs into general models, and (3) examining the nature of intellectual styles.
2.1.2.1
Developing different style constructs
In the earliest stage of development, from the mid-1940s to the 1970s,
researchers were curious about how and why people performed differently in
various types of activities. They started to explore these individual differences
through the notion of styles (i.e. people’s preferred way of dealing with tasks).
However, most empirical studies were from the perspective of cognition or
personality. On the one hand, advocates in the field of personality (Costa &
21
McCare, 1985, 1992) claimed that the varied behavioral expressions were due to
people’s different personalities. On the other hand, the cognition advocates (e.g.,
Gardner et al., 1959; Witkin, 1964; Paivio, 1971) argued that the differences in
human performance should be understood in relation to personal ways of
cognitive functioning (e.g., perception, mental representation, cognitive controls,
and cognitive processes). However, neither studies through cognition nor those of
personality could provide a satisfactory explanation of individual differences, as
styles are different from abilities and personality (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997).
It is noteworthy that people’s preferences for doing something are different from
their ability actually to do it. Instead, psychologists sought an answer at the
interface. In order to explain clearly how styles occur at the interface, researchers
started to develop constructs and to design numerous measurements to test
empirically the existence of styles by investigating people’s performance of
different activities.
In this period, a large number of constructs with stylistic features (e.g.,
leveling versus sharpening, abstract versus concrete, constricted versus flexible
control) have been named as different style constructs. Cognitive styles such as
Witkin’s (1962) field dependence/independence (i.e. how people organize
information
in
the
perceptual
field)
and
Kagan’s
(1964)
styles
of
reflectivity-impulsivity (i.e. conceptual tempo) attracted much attention in
research.
Although many style constructs have been developed, they were investigated
from the personal perspectives of researchers. Because of the disconnection from
other literature in the same field and the lack of communication among
researchers, most of these constructs were confused to provide a conceptual
framework and language in common with other psychological literature. Lewis
(1976) stated that “different groups of researchers seem determined to pursue their
own pet distinctions in cheerful disregard of one another” (p.304). Curry (1983)
22
noted that “chief among these difficulties is the bewildering confusion of
definitions surrounding learning style conceptualizations and the concomitant
wide variation in scale or scope of behavior claimed to be predicted by learning
style models” (p.1). Both of them have pointed out that there was a need for a
coherent theory of styles to make the relevant literature understandable and be
able to explain human behavior in teaching, learning, and thinking processes.
Thus, researchers were urged to investigate styles in a more integrative way.
2.1.2.2
Integrating diverse style constructs into general models
In the second stage of development, several scholars conceptually integrated
the large number of style labels into integrative models so as to generate a global
perspective to study styles. Curry (1991) proposed the Onion Model of Learning
Styles. Following that, three other integrative models were proposed: Miller’s
(1987) model of cognitive process and styles, Riding and Cheema’s (1991)
integrative model of cognitive styles, and Grigorenko and Sternberg’s (1995)
model of style traditions.
Curry (1983) adopted a system approach to classify nine learning style
measures into a three-layer onion model to illustrate the interaction between styles
and different learning approaches. Styles of the cognitive-personality type exist in
the innermost layers, representing the deep-structured personality of the learner.
The middle layer is the combination of the information-processing type of style
measures, indicating the preferences of learners to reflect and analyze information.
The instructional-preferences types of style measures in the outermost layers
demonstrate the instructional preferences of learners. Miller (1987) took an
information-processing approach to organize eight cognitive styles into three
types of cognitive processes, namely perception (the process of how stimuli are
recognized, interpreted, and prepared), memory (how information is represented,
organized, and retrieved), and thought (how information is interacted with).
23
Riding and Cheema (1991) captured and conceptualized more than thirty
cognitive style constructs into two dimensions: the wholist-analytic dimension,
seeing if people tend to organize information into wholes or parts; and the
verbal-imager dimension, concerning if people prefer to represent information in
verbal dialogue or visual picture. They have also developed the Cognitive Styles
Analysis (CSA) to assess peoples’ cognitive styles in this model. Grigorenko and
Sternberg (1995) and Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) classified styles into three
parallel traditions. Styles in the cognition-centered reflect people’s consistent
modes of cognitive functioning. Styles occur in the personality-centered tradition
have been investigated as personality traits; and styles in the activity-centered
traditions have been viewed as close to strategies.
Although Riding and Cheema’s model and that of Grigorenko and Sternberg
are believed to be more general in the field, none of the four models mentioned
above have succeeded in developing a general theory of styles. On one hand, three
out of four style models (except Sternberg’s) focused on different dimensions. Yet,
Curry’s model put an emphasis on individual personality, whereas Miller’s and
Riding and Cheema’s models focused on mental processes. On the other hand, the
assessment methods used in both cognition- and personality-centered tradition
have been marked as problematic in distinguishing styles from ability and
personality (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). One way to resolve these problems
and to push forward the development of styles is to conceptualize styles in a new
way. In this light, Sternberg (1988, 1997), in line with the analogy of government
structure conceptualized thirteen thinking styles into the theory of mental
self-government (MSG).
2.1.2.3
Examining the nature of intellectual styles
In the third stage of development, styles have been continually integrated
into general models, and also put into practice in different settings, such as
24
business (Claxton, McIntyre, Clow, & Zemanek Jr, 1996; McIntyre, Claxton, &
Jones, 1994) and education (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Riding & Fairhurst, 2001).
Instead of measuring human performance differences by variation of their abilities
and personalities, the theory of mental self-government explains individual
differences in respect of the many different ways that individuals use their abilities
in daily interaction with the environment. During the late 1990s and early 2000s,
Zhang and her colleagues (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2002e; Zhang &
Postiglione, 2001) generated a considerable amount of research on thinking styles
and their implications for the educational environment through examining the
relationship of thinking styles with various personal and environmental
characteristics as well as with other style constructs. The results of this research
not only demonstrated that thinking styles can be categorized into three types,
namely Type I, II, and III; but also addressed three controversial issues regarding
the nature of styles: (1) the value issue – whether styles are value-laden,
value-differentiated, or value-free; (2) the malleability issue – whether styles are
stable or modifiable; and (3) the overlap issue – whether styles are different
constructs overlapping with one another or similar constructs with unique features.
In this research, discussion of the nature of intellectual styles is centered on two of
the three controversial issues: whether or not styles are value-laden, and whether
or not they are malleable.
Although empirical studies based on the theory of mental self-government
are seldom experimental and longitudinal, results of existing studies have
indicated that styles could be further organized into a new integrative model, in
which all styles constructs would be encompassed. Based on the notion of three
types of thinking styles and its fruitful research findings, the threefold model of
intellectual styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005) was developed. Zhang and
Sternberg (2005, 2006) suggested that this general model should take an
open-system approach to integrate any individual model that had been empirically
25
tested together with other style constructs and had been put into operation in some
context. So far, ten style models/constructs have been surveyed, learning
approaches (Biggs, 1978), modes of thinking (Torrance, 1988), personality types
(Myers & McCaulley, 1988), conceptual tempo (Kagan, 1964) and perceptual
styles (Witkin, 1962) among them.
Today, interest in research on intellectual styles remains strong. Intellectual
styles form the theoretical foundations of educational studies in relation to
teaching and learning. In order to understand the practical application of styles in
education and their impact on the education process, it is advantageous to
comprehend the nature of intellectual styles and Sternberg’s (1988, 1997) theory
of mental self-government (MSG).
2.1.3
The Nature of Intellectual Styles
The development of the threefold model of intellectual styles has two goals.
The first is to integrate the conceptual ideas of existing style models/theories and
empirical data on styles into an organized and scientific framework. The second is
to address more explicitly the three controversial issues regarding the nature of
intellectual styles, centering the discussion on the contention that styles are
value-laden and are malleable, and thus, they can be trained.
2.1.3.1
Conceptualization of intellectual styles
Zhang and Sternberg (2005, 2006) proposed that the concept of intellectual
styles should encompass all style constructs, such as learning, teaching and
thinking styles, which all refer to one’s preferred way of processing information
and dealing with tasks. They further classified style constructs of the ten existing
style models/theories into Types I, II and III intellectual styles, characterized by
showing people’s preferences for each of the five pairs of underlying concepts:
structured versus free of structure, cognitive simplicity versus cognitive
26
complexity, conformity versus non-conformity, authority versus autonomy, and
group versus individual. Within the framework of intellectual styles, people who
favor Type I intellectual styles demonstrate their preference for tasks that have a
low degree of structure, cognitive complexity, and non-conformity. Whereas
people who favor Type II intellectual styles show a preference for tasks that are
structured, and for cognitive simplicity, and conformity. While Type I and II
intellectual styles fall at the ends of the five pairs of concepts, Type III intellectual
styles manifest the characteristics of both Type I and Type II intellectual styles,
varying across tasks, situations and time of employment. By taking an
open-system approach to include other qualified style models/theories and
classifying intellectual styles into three types, the threefold model of intellectual
styles has provided a global perspective for the field of styles.
2.1.3.2
Controversial issues regarding the nature of intellectual styles
In the literature on intellectual styles, three controversial issues regarding the
nature of styles have been addressed. The first issue concerns the value of styles,
seeing if styles are value-laden, value-differentiated, or value-free. The second
issue focuses on the malleability of styles, looking at whether styles represent
states or traits. The third issue is the overlap issue, investigating whether styles are
different constructs or similar constructs with different labels. Regarding the third
issue, the relationships between different style constructs have been clarified,
asserting that styles are similar constructs with their own unique characteristics.
Up to now, the value and the malleability issues regarding the nature of
intellectual styles are still waiting to be answered. With the aim of addressing
more explicitly the issues of style value and style malleability, one of the focuses
of this review is to discuss literature on the two issues: (1) whether styles are
value-laden or value-differentiated and (2) whether styles represent traits or states.
27
Value-laden versus value-differentiated. According to empirical evidence
from research on intellectual styles, some scholars have proposed that intellectual
styles are value-laden, meaning that some styles carry more adaptive value than
do others (Choi et al., 2008; Meneely & Portillo, 2005; Zhang, 2000b, 2002c).
Other scholars have instead turned to the notion of value-differentiation,
indicating that the value of styles is dependent on the specific situation and time
of employment (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Drysdale, et al., 2001; Sternberg, 1994).
However, they have seldom mentioned the idea of value-free. To see if styles are
value-laden or value-differentiated, researchers endeavor to examine the
relationships of styles with various personal and environmental variables, as well
as to investigate the role of styles in students’ learning and development.
Generally, some intellectual styles are consistently associated with personal
characteristics that are perceived as being more positive as they carry more
adaptive value. Type I intellectual styles are those with such values as higher
levels of creative thinking and higher self-esteem (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Zhang,
2001c; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001). Whereas Type II intellectual styles are
considered to be more negative because they are related to personal characteristics
that carry less adaptive value. For example, many findings have identified that the
field-independent style (FI) was associated with higher levels of assertiveness,
desirable social behavior, cognitive complexity and moral maturity (Deng &
Zhang, 2000; Torres & Cano, 1995). Yeh (2007) reported that student-teachers
with creative thinking styles associated with higher levels of a critical-thinking
disposition, self-awareness, and reflective thinking, whereas teachers with the
judicial or legislative thinking styles had more positive teaching behaviors. In this
regard, Type I intellectual styles are generally more adaptive, and thus styles are
value-laden.
More recently, intellectual styles have been used in experimental studies to
evaluate the training effects on students’ performance. This research also indicates
28
that styles are value-laden but not value-free. Findings have shown that students
with Type I intellectual styles of learning benefited more from interventions than
Type II learners. For example, Miller (2005) found that students employing a
concrete random style retained significantly more information than students using
a concrete sequential style, in a computer-based statistics class. Research results
from Yeh (2007) supported those of Miller’s, pointing out that pre-service teachers
who employed the judicial and the legislative styles demonstrated greater
improvement in teaching behaviors than those with the executive style. Given
these research findings, that Type I intellectual styles are generally adaptive and
carry more positive value, intellectual styles are thus seen to be value-laden.
On the other hand, research has reported that the adaptive value of styles is
variable across tasks and situations. In other words, styles being encouraged in
one situation and at one time may be suppressed in another situation and at
another time. This contention has been supported by empirical data, when
students’ preferences for intellectual styles in learning have been investigated,
indicating that both Type I and Type II intellectual styles are adaptive and depend
largely on subject disciplines and instructional environment. For example, Type I
intellectual
styles
of
learning
(e.g.,
concrete
random,
liberal,
and
field-independent styles) were associated with better performance in arts-related
subjects. Whereas Type II intellectual styles (e.g., concrete sequential and
field-dependent styles) were more frequently associated with better academic
performance in science-related subjects such as biology, chemistry, and computer
science (Drysdale, et al., 2001; Feij, 1976). Given these findings, one could
assume that the adaptive value of students’ intellectual styles of learning can be
observed when they learn in different environments. Students’ creative and
innovative ideas are more likely to be encouraged in arts-related subjects, and
being suppressed in those science-related subjects where analytic and critical
thinking is more important.
29
It has been observed that intellectual styles which are valued in one culture
are, in many respects, viewed in an opposite way in another. The cultural impact
makes clear the nature of styles, suggesting that different subject disciplines and
instructional environments reward different intellectual styles. Thus, styles are
value-differentiated. For example, Type I intellectual styles have been found to be
highly valued in Western societies such as the US and Austria, whereas Eastern
societies (e.g., Tibet, Hong Kong or the Philippines) preferred people with Type II
intellectual styles (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Volet, et
al., 1994; Zhang, et al., 2008). Given these findings together, evidence indicates
that styles are also value-differentiated and, again, they cannot be value-free.
The discussion on the issue of style value regarding the nature of intellectual
styles shows two facets, and findings do not yield a clear indication of the issue of
style value, and a conclusion that styles are either value-laden or
value-differentiated is therefore unlikely. Research on the issue of style value is
under development, but has produced evidence that styles are not value-free. In
order to clarify this controversy over the nature of styles, the present research
investigates whether styles are value-laden through identifying teachers’
expressed preferences for students’ intellectual styles in learning and students’
preferred ways of teachers’ teaching.
Traits versus states. To investigate the controversial issue of whether
intellectual styles represent traits or they represent states, empirical findings are
examined and different viewpoints among scholars are explored. It is important to
notice that if styles represent traits, they are stable and hard to change. However,
if styles represent states, they can be socialized, taught or trained.
It is worth noting, however, that some scholars contend that styles are traits.
As pointed out by Riding and Cheema (1991), “a style is an in-built and fairly
fixed characteristic of an individual… they are static” (p.195-196). Indeed, some
scholars do believe that styles are malleable, but the change of styles is not
30
frequent and constant. Sternberg (1997) suggested that styles are teachable and
can be trained. Zhang and Sternberg claimed that “Styles represent states,
although they can be relatively stable over a period of time” (Zhang & Sternberg,
2006, p.5). They further explained ‘status as states does not mean that intellectual
styles constantly change. They can normally be rather stable, except when there is
a demand for change of styles by specific situations’ (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006,
p.170).
Empirically, findings indicated that intellectual styles are socialized by
various personal and environmental factors and are modifiable by training
programs. In an effort to examine the effect of socialization on styles, much of the
endeavor was focused on investigating styles with different personal and
environmental factors (e.g., age, gender, teaching/instructional environment,
intellectual styles and academic qualifications of parents and teachers, perceptions
of
the
teaching/instructional
environment,
and
experiences
in
teaching/extra-curricular activities), among which age, gender, and cultural effects
have been widely discussed. The influence of age and gender has been long
established, and most frequently the effects of these factors are interactive. For
example, Cummings and William (1995) investigated the effect of age on the
styles assessed by the Myers-Biggs Type Indicator (MBTI, Myers & McCaulley,
1988). They reported that a significant age-group effect has been shown on all
four
MTBI
dimensions
(extroversion-introversion,
sensing-intuitive,
thinking-feeling, and judging- perceiving) among both male and female
participants. A distinct percentage decrease on the extroversion-introversion
dimension was clearly revealed in the female sample. In the literature on
intellectual styles, much other research has also noted evidence regarding gender
and age differences in intellectual styles (Riding, 2005; Riding & Grimley, 1999;
Torres & Cano, 1995). These findings have made clear the socialization effects of
age and gender on intellectual styles.
31
Furthermore, empirical studies have suggested that students adapted their
intellectual styles to new instructional environments. For example, Yamazaki
(2004) examined the adaptive changes that Japanese expatriates had made to their
learning styles in the American business environment. He found that the Japanese
expatriates’ learning styles had moved from the reflective mode to the active
mode over time. The changes in learning styles became more obvious when the
Japanese stayed in the US for a prolonged period of time. Volet, Renshaw and
Tietzel (1994) found that Southeast-Asian students also made changes in their
learning approaches in adapting to the demands of the instructional environment
in a Western-Australian culture.
Zhang and Sternberg (2006) proposed that style modification can result from
direct training, and programs are therefore designed to aim at modifying people’s
intellectual styles. For example, Mitchell and Cahill (2005) investigated the
changes in intellectual styles as measured by the Adaptation-Innovation Inventory
using a treatment-control group design. Students attended a non-academic
summer training program at the Naval Academy. After the program, Mitchell and
Cahill found that students’ scores on the innovative styles were lower than those
students who withdrew the program before completing, and than those from
non-military universities. These findings indicated the effect of the training
program on students’ intellectual styles. However, as Mitchell and Cahill argued,
the result was the effect of a military instructional environment (a routine-based
and discipline-oriented environment) but not the training program, which had a
negative impact on students’ innovative thinking processes.
According to discussion among scholars, although some have argued that
styles represent traits, more convincing evidence has been produced that styles
represent states. They are socialized by various personal and environmental
factors and are modified during training programs. However, it does not mean that
one could conclude that styles are malleable. On one hand, while noticing that
32
most of the evidence is based on cross-sectional investigations, the findings of
longitudinal and experimental studies have not been widely discussed and are
limited. On the other hand, the literature in this area is still being developed, and
empirical data concerning the direct training effect on styles are not convincing
and need further justification. In an effort to provide more supportive evidence of
the position that styles should represent states, one of the objectives of this
research is to prove that students’ intellectual styles in learning are malleable
when they are taught by teachers with Type I intellectual styles.
The findings on the value and malleability issues regarding the nature of
intellectual styles are still inconsistent. The two issues should therefore continue
to be researched and examined in a scientific way. In addition, more empirical
research regarding these two issues is further discussed, on the basis of thinking
styles (in section 2.1.4.3.) and within the context of education (in Theme two).
The theory of mental self-government forms the framework of this research, and
is thus discussed in detail in a separate section.
2.1.4
Theory of Thinking Styles: Mental Self-government
This research employs the theory of mental self-government (MSG) to study
how teachers and students employ thinking styles in their teaching and learning,
and the thirteen thinking styles are thus discussed in detail. The theory of mental
self-government is the most up-to-date and general model of intellectual styles. It
stands out from many style models/theories as it embraces studies of styles from
all
three
style
traditions:
cognition-centered,
personality-centered,
and
activity-centered (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). In general, studies on thinking
styles take a cognitive approach to delineating a profile of how people direct their
intelligence in interacting with their environment. Some of the thinking styles
(e.g., judicial and global) are cognitive in their ways of conceptualizing
information. The MSG also takes the activity and personality approaches to
33
assessment. It measures people’s typical performance (e.g., people’s preferred
ways of using their abilities) in an activity context (e.g., educational context).
2.1.4.1
The metaphor
Using the metaphor of a government structure, the theory of mental
self-government (Sternberg, 1988, 1997) provides a comprehensive examination
of thirteen thinking styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). Each thinking style
describes individuals’ preferences in response to task completion in different
situations. These styles fall along five dimensions: including three functions, four
forms, two levels, two scopes, and two leanings.
Like a government, styles of people’s mental self-government need to
accomplish three different functions. The legislative function pertains to concern
with creating and planning. The executive function concerns implementing and
doing. The judicial function concerns evaluating and comparing. Like in
government, there are four forms in our MSG. An individual with the monarchic
style enjoys working with one focus at a time. An individual with the hierarchic
style prefers to work towards multiple goals with different priorities. An
individual with the oligarchic style likes to work on multiple tasks that are equally
important. An individual with the anarchic style enjoys working on tasks that
require no system. People manage their work at two different levels. People with
the local style prefer to work on concrete details whereas people with the global
style tend to work with abstract problems. People may assume two scopes of
issues. The internal scope of mental self-government suggests that individuals
prefer to work independently from others. In contrast, the external scope shows
that people prefer to interact with others throughout the working process. Finally,
people vary in their degree of adherence to rules and regulations. People with the
conservative style like to follow rules in performing tasks, whereas those with the
liberal style enjoy being engaged in tasks that involve novelty and ambiguity.
34
2.1.4.2
Profiles of thinking styles
Since styles have become more popular in explaining individual differences
in performance, the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg & Wagner, 1992)
and its revised versions (TSI-R, Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2003; TSI-R2,
Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2007) have been intensively used in academic
settings to understand how students manage their learning activities. Meanwhile,
the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1993) has
been used to exam how teachers manage their teaching duties. Relying on the
theory of mental self-government, many adaptive measurements of TSI have been
developed for different research purposes. Recently, two inventories have been
developed to measure people’s values in the context of teaching and learning. One
is the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b)
that assesses teachers’ preferences for thinking styles that students use in their
learning. Another is the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (PTSTI,
Zhang, 2003b) that determines the types of thinking styles in teaching that
students value among teachers.
Sternberg (1997) argued that people vary in all sorts of ways and that when
people employ styles in daily activities it is possible that they are displaying
profiles of styles, but not a single one. Zhang and her colleagues (Zhang, 2000b,
2001a, 2002d; Zhang & Huang, 2001; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001; Zhang &
Sternberg, 2000) have conducted numerous studies to investigate various aspects
of thinking styles in academic settings. Research on thinking styles in education
settings has been conducted along three lines of investigation (Zhang & Sternberg,
2005). The first line focuses on exploring the relationship of thinking styles to
various personal and environmental characteristics. The second line investigates
the role of thinking styles in various aspects of student learning and development.
The third line examines the nature of the relationships between thinking styles and
other style constructs proposed by other theorists.
35
Based on the diverse evidence from these research studies, Zhang and her
colleagues (Zhang & Huang, 2001; Zhang, et al., 2005; Zhang & Postiglione,
2001; Zhang & Sternberg, 2000, 2001) have classified the thirteen thinking styles
into three types. The legislative, judicial, liberal, global and hierarchic styles
belong to the first group, namely the Type I thinking styles. These styles tend to
be more creativity-generating and have a higher level of cognitive complexity.
Type II thinking styles are more norm-conforming, and the executive, local,
monarchic, and conservative styles have been categorized as of this type. The
remaining styles, the anarchic, oligarchic, internal and external styles, have been
categorized as Type III thinking styles that hold characteristics from both Type I
and Type II depending on the stylistic demands of a specific task.
Zhang and her colleagues have also accumulated a rich literature in
discussing the nature of thinking styles. Since the development of MSG, Zhang
and her colleagues have conducted many empirical studies (Zhang & Huang, 2001;
Zhang et al., 2005; Zhang & Sternberg, 2000). The MSG has also attracted many
scholars to devote their efforts to research on thinking styles (Balkis & Isiker,
2005; Bernardo, et al., 2002; Fjell & Walhovd, 2004; Fraser, Van Ede,
Hislop-Esterhuysen, Owen, & Fraser, 2004; Yang & Lin, 2004) and numerous
postgraduate students to base their in-depth studies (Fan, 2006; Kaufman, 2001;
Kirwin, 1999; Murphy, 2007) all over the world on investigating thinking styles in
both academic and non-academic settings.
2.1.4.3
Controversial issues within the context of thinking styles
The three areas of research on thinking styles have addressed the
controversial issues regarding the nature of styles, to discern (1) whether styles
are value-laden, value-differentiated, or value-free; (2) whether styles represent
traits or states; and (3) whether styles are different style constructs or similar
constructs with different style labels. This research takes a stand on two of the
36
three main controversial issues, investigating the two contentions that styles are:
(1) largely value-laden, but at time value-differentiated and (2) are malleable, and
thus they can be trained.
Styles are value-laden and are at time value-differentiated. As Sternberg
(1997) has suggested, the value of thinking styles is dependent on the question of
fit, which is concerned with how people with different styles of thinking work
together, or how different styles are used in different environments (e.g., a cultural
and instructional environment) or situations. Some styles fit well with various
tasks and situations, resulting in more adaptive value.
Findings from the studies identified in the literature suggest that Type I styles
should be considered more adaptive. This is because Type I thinking styles are
associated with personal characteristics ordinarily viewed as more positive. Zhang
(2002a, 2004b; 2001) maintained that Type I thinking styles were positively
related to a stronger sense of vocational purpose and a higher level of self-esteem
and cognitive development. Betoret (2007), investigating the relationship between
teaching styles and course satisfaction, found that students were more satisfied
with the course if teachers employed Type I teaching styles. Chen (2007)
established a finding consistent with that of Betoret’s, students’ rating of teachers’
teaching was significantly and negatively correlated with Type II teaching styles.
These findings showed that students do not value Type II teaching styles, but that
they do value Type I styles. In other words, styles are value-laden.
Teachers and students frequently give preferences to those styles with more
positive human values, which is Type I thinking styles. A small amount of
research on teachers’ and students’ preferences for thinking styles in teaching and
learning are available, showing that teachers preferred students using Type I
thinking styles in their learning. Findings from empirical studies also
demonstrated that students valued Type I teaching styles among their teachers
(Betoret, 2007; Chen, 2007; Zhang, 2004e).
37
However, people valuing styles in one environment may value other styles in
another environment. As is the case in Hong Kong, teaching and assessment are
conducted in a way that causes students to learn in norm-conforming ways (Zhang
& Sternberg, 2006); being a Type II learner fits better with the education system in
Hong Kong. On the contrary, Type II learning styles are not valued in the US
educational system, in which students’ achievements are positively related to the
Type I learning styles that require students’ creativity and autonomy (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 1993, 1995). Thus, the same type of styles carries different values in
Eastern and Western cultures; in other words, thinking styles can be
value-differentiated.
Although research findings have established well enough to address the issue
that thinking styles are either value-laden or value-differentiated, some findings
are inconsistent. For instance, as mentioned, convergent evidence (e.g., strategic
plans of different universities and schools) has demonstrated that the education
system in HK values Type II thinking styles, and that Type II learners were
associated with higher academic achievements in many studies (Sun, 2000; Zhang,
2004e). In contrast, instead of valuing the Type II thinking styles, Zhang (2004)
found that Hong Kong students preferred their teachers to employ Type I teaching
styles, regardless of their own learning styles. Subsequent findings have revealed,
but in an inconsistent way, the value issues regarding the nature of styles.
Although more evidence is still warranted to clarify further the contradiction and
inconsistency of style value, existing findings have already shown that styles are
not value-free. In addition, through empirical investigations into this dispute,
however, it has been a source of criticism that empirical and qualitative studies in
the field cannot yet provide a satisfactory explanation on why and how some
styles are preferred and more valued. However, much of the research effort on
intellectual styles supports the contention that Type I styles are preferred, and thus
one could take a stand in the dispute about the style value, support the view that
38
thinking styles are largely value-laden, and they are at times value-differentiated.
The present research investigates the type of learning styles that teachers value
among students and the type of teaching styles students prefer that teachers use in
their teaching; to further support the claim that styles are value-laden and to
propose a need of an experimental study that aims at training teachers’ Type I
teaching styles and developing students’ Type I learning styles.
Thinking styles are malleable. There is no single best way in teaching and
learning, or in any other human activity. Observing this circumstance, Sternberg
(1997) claimed that people need to adapt themselves to fit the environment so as
to gain successful experiences. One way to achieve this is to become flexible in
using styles. In other words, styles need to be malleable (i.e. styles can be
socialized and taught).
Over the past two decades, numerous findings have indicated that teachers’
and students’ thinking styles do differ as a function of socializing factors. For
example, gender, age, teaching/learning experience, teaching/instructional
environment (i.e. level of forms taught, school banding, school type), academic
discipline, teachers/parents academic qualification, and experience of professional
training/extra-curricular activity have been identified as important factors
influencing teachers’ and students’ employment of thinking styles in the
teaching-learning process, among which the instructional environment, culture
and personal characteristics (e.g., age and gender) predominate in the literature on
styles. For example, the results of research on the relationships of thinking styles
and various aspects of teaching experience have indicated that teachers with more
professional training and years of teaching experience tended to employ Type I
thinking styles in their teaching(Chen, 2007; Lee, 2002; Sternberg & Grigorenko,
1995; Zhang & Sachs, 1997). Furthermore, research findings also indicated that
students with more experience of extra-curricular activity behind them were
associated with Type I learning styles (Zhang, 1999, 2001c).
39
Students’ learning styles can also be modified by teachers’ construction of
different instructional environment. Students modify their learning styles to fit the
stylistic demands in different environment so as to gain successful experiences in
learning. For example, Fan (2006) conducted an experimental study aiming to
examine the effect of different instructional settings (the traditional and
hypermedia instructional settings) on students’ learning styles. He reported that
learning styles of students in a traditional setting have become significantly
different from those students in a hypermedia setting. For instance, the
hypermedia type of instructional setting has intensified the use of Type I learning
styles (liberal styles). Meanwhile, Type II learning styles (executive, conservative,
monarchic and local) have been encouraged through learning in the traditional
type of instructional setting. Fan’s (2006) research has provided a strong stand to
support the claim that styles are malleable; however, experimental study in this
field is limited. Based on findings from research into different aspects of teaching
and learning, it could be concluded that styles are malleable.
Although the discussion of the nature of thinking styles is based on plentiful
findings in the academic setting, the malleability issue has seldom been examined
in experimental or longitudinal research. With a view to taking an empirically
defensible stand towards the malleability issue in relation to the nature of
intellectual styles, researchers are endeavoring to accumulate evidence from
experimental and longitudinal studies. This research attempts to investigate the
issue of style value and style malleability (to see if styles are value-laden and are
malleable) through examining the impact of thinking styles on learning and
teaching.
In summary, throughout the review in this section, the major concept of
intellectual styles has been discussed. Intellectual styles represent individuals’
preferences in dealing with tasks or interacting with environments. They have
been classified into three main types (I, II, and III) based upon previous findings
40
from research on various intellectual styles and on the theory of mental
self-government, to address the controversial issues regarding the nature of
intellectual styles and to explain individual differences in various human activities.
The theory of mental self-government is considered one of the most influential
models in the field of styles, and forms the framework of this research.
Findings from research have indicated that styles are either value-laden or
value-differentiated, and also that they are malleable. Type I styles are more
adaptive and hold more positive human attributes than Type II styles. For example,
research finding have shown that Type I styles are closely associated with a higher
level of cognitive and psychosocial development, whereas Type II styles are
positively related to higher levels of academic achievement in Eastern societies.
Cross sectional investigations have also demonstrated that intellectual styles can
be socialized by various personal and environmental characteristics, such as age,
gender, culture, instructional environment, and professional experience. Although
the debates over the value issue and malleability issue in respect of the nature of
styles are still far from reaching a final conclusion, the investigation into thinking
styles provides a good platform for researchers to add further evidence on the
controversial issues of styles. The issues of style value and style malleability will
be further investigated in this research through comparing the preferred types of
teaching and learning styles among teachers and students, and through examining
the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and on their career
interests.
In Theme Two, additional empirical findings within the context of education
are discussed, providing more evidence for the contention that styles are
value-laden and are malleable. The theory of mental self-government serves as a
basis for tests of the impact of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning
styles. In this regard, teachers’ thinking styles in teaching and students’ thinking
styles in learning are synonymous with teaching and learning styles, respectively.
41
2.2.
Theme Two: Intellectual Styles in Education and in
Educational Research: Further Review of Style Value and
Style Malleability
Both teachers and students are equipped with unique sets of potentialities and
strengths. Teachers prefer different ways of managing their teaching duties and of
constructing an appropriate instructional environment in which activities and tasks
are designed to guide students’ learning and development in predictable ways
(Sternberg, 1997). Accordingly, each instructional environment rewards students’
specific skills and abilities, which teachers expect students to develop in the
learning process. In the same way, students’ styles of learning may be a reflection
of their expectations of a teacher’s performance, as well as of the design of
instructional environment. Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that an instructional
environment may in turn affect and possibly modify teachers’ and students’ styles
of teaching and learning. To understand how an instructional environment can be
effectively created by teaching styles, it is important to be aware of the nature of
both teaching and learning styles, and the ways in which the education process is
affected.
Teachers bring certain intellectual styles to their teaching; for example, as
Sternberg (1997) reported, teachers construct an instructional environment
according to their teaching styles. To some extent, teachers employ different styles
in creating an instructional environment that demonstrates their expectations of
students’ learning (Sternberg, 1997; Zhang et al., 2008). For example, teachers
with Type I intellectual styles of teaching encourage students’ innovative ideas,
whereas teachers with Type II intellectual styles prefer students to follow rules.
Thus, a teaching style can be understood as one type of instructional environment
that may exert powerful influences on students’ learning and their development of
specific personal characteristics (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Sternberg, 1997;
Zhang, 2006a), and may shape and modify students’ intellectual styles of learning
42
(Broad, et al., 2004; Choi, et al., 2008; Gordon & Debus, 2002; Newble & Clarke,
1986; Traintafillou, Pomportsis, & Demetriadis, 2003). Attempts to understand
students’ learning and development as well as to investigate teachers’ intellectual
styles in teaching and their creation of an educational environment are therefore
significant.
This theme is organized into four parts. The first is concerned with
delineating teachers’ and students’ preferences for intellectual styles in school and
the various factors that socialize teachers’ and students’ intellectual styles. The
second describes various factors affecting the malleability of intellectual styles
among students. The third explores the relationship between intellectual styles and
students’ development of particular types of career interest. In discussing the
varied aspects of intellectual styles in the teaching-learning process, two
long-standing controversial issues concerned with the nature of intellectual styles
are addressed: style value (whether or not styles are value-laden) and style
malleability (whether or not styles are malleable).
2.2.1
Different Preferences for Intellectual Styles in School
Zhang and Sternberg (2006) asserted that styles are largely value-laden
and at times value-differentiated. This claim finds empirical support in the
exploration of teachers’ and students’ preferred ways of dealing with their
respective teaching and learning activities. In addition, research on intellectual
styles further sustains the contention by investigating the types of learning styles
that teachers’ value among students and the types of teaching styles students
prefer teachers to use. Consistent findings have been obtained to support the
contention that styles are value-laden. For instance, Type I intellectual styles
(creativity-generating) are generally more preferred than Type II styles
(norm-conforming) among teachers and students. They prefer to use intellectual
styles that encourage them to be creative, innovative, critical, analytical,
43
evaluative,
and
communicative
(Mitsis
&
Foley,
2009;
Postareff
&
Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). With due notice given to the
issue of style value, investigation of three sub-sections are called for: teachers’
styles of teaching, students’ preferences for their own styles of learning, and
preferred intellectual styles from the perspectives of teachers and students.
2.2.1.1
Teachers’ styles of teaching
Empirical findings concerning teachers’ teaching styles have consistently
supported that teachers have a higher preference for using Type I intellectual
styles in teaching. They prefer to plan curriculum, create instructional
environments, and design activities by employing Type I teaching styles. For
instance, Fan and Ye (2007) investigated teaching styles among primary and
secondary school teachers, and Chen and Watkins (2010) investigated teaching
styles among university faculty. Consistently, these studies indicated that teachers
teaching at both schools and universities reported that they prefer teaching styles
that were creativity-generating and intellectually challenging.
Teachers’ preferences are also shown in the relationship between intellectual
styles and various socialization factors. Teacher’s level of experience in teaching
and academic qualifications could be most significant. Researchers repeatedly
indicated that experienced teachers tended to employ Type I teaching styles,
which are more creativity-generating, rather than the more norm-conforming Type
II teaching styles (Betoret, 2007; Fan & Ye, 2007). For example, Zhang and
Sternberg (2002) found that teachers who had more professional work experiences
outside school preferred the judicial and liberal teaching styles. They also found
that teachers with higher academic qualifications, such as a university degree,
scored higher on Type I teaching styles and lower on Type II, whereas the results
were reversed in the case of teachers without a university degree. In the same way,
Chen (2007) found that experienced teachers tended to use the global teaching
44
style, whereas novice teachers preferred to use the local teaching style.
After an analysis of the various findings, research evidence has largely
supported the contention that Type I teaching styles are preferred to Type II
teaching styles, and therefore that styles are value-laden. In addition, with these
findings in mind, it is reasonable to assume that teachers with Type I intellectual
styles
will
be
able
to
construct
instructional
environments
that are
creativity-generating, where students can achieve positive learning experiences
and development (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Lee & Tsai, 2004; Miller, 2005; Yeh,
2007), and where an innovative way of learning, for instance, may be developed.
2.2.1.2
Students’ preferences for their own styles of learning.
Several researchers have reported that students cling to their own preferred
ways of learning. This research area has been studied through investigation of the
relationship of intellectual styles to culture and academic disciplines. Thus, again,
researchers have addressed the issue that some styles are more valued, namely
Type I intellectual learning styles. For example, Bogan (1993) found that students
majoring in education preferred the legislative style; Drysdale et al. (2001)
determined that students majoring in an arts-related field tended to employ the
random type of learning styles; findings from Chen (2001) indicated that students
in accounting classes had a stronger preference for Type I learning styles, whereas
a divergent style was preferred among occupational therapy students (French,
Cosgriff, & Brown, 2007). Although some findings have shown that teachers and
students value Type II intellectual styles in other subjects, other findings have
frequently demonstrated that students from diverse subject disciplines have a
stronger preference for Type I intellectual styles.
These preferences were consistent across students with different cultural
backgrounds (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Chen & Zhang, 2010; Murphy & Janeke,
2008; Volpentesta, Ammirato, & Sofo, 2010; Zhang & Sternberg, 2000).
45
Empirical findings have demonstrated that students from Hong Kong, Nanjing,
Taiwan, Korea, the United States, and Spain preferred to employ Type I
intellectual styles in learning (Betoret, 2007; Chen, 2001; Shahla & Ostovar, 2007;
Zhang, et al., 2008). However, these studies have focused mainly on university
students and have seldom addressed secondary school students.
Further findings regarding students’ learning styles support the contention
that styles are value-laden, showing that Type I intellectual styles are preferred by
students in different cultures and in various academic disciplines. These findings
can be attributed to the notion that Type I intellectual styles are related to more
positive human attributes, for instance, higher levels of style awareness (He, 2006;
Hendry, et al., 2005), better academic achievement (Ford, 1995; Lee & Tsai, 2004;
Proctor, 2000; Tsagaris, 2006), higher emotional control (Murphy, 2007), a
stronger sense of vocational purpose (Zhang, 2004a), and higher levels of
creativity (Meneely & Portillo, 2005; Yang & Lin, 2004; Yu, 1997).
.
2.2.1.3
Preferred intellectual styles from the perspectives of teachers and
students
In recent years, led by Zhang and Sternberg (2006), research interest in
intellectual styles has accelerated and has been extended to investigating preferred
intellectual styles from the perspectives of teachers and students, aiming to
examine if they explicitly express their preferences for others to use certain types
of intellectual styles. However, previous empirical investigation into this research
area has not employed a theoretical framework. In this regard, two inventories
have been developed that are based on the theory of mental self-government,
specifically assessing teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles by the
Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b) and
students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles by the Preferred Thinking Styles
in Teaching Inventory (PTSTI, Zhang, 2003b).
46
The literature in this area is still developing, and there are only limited
findings available on using the PTSLI and the PTSTI. Zhang et al. (2008)
employed the PSTLI to compare Tibetan and Nanjing teachers’ preferences for
students’ learning styles. Teachers in Nanjing indicated a strong preference for
students to use Type I learning styles in which students were given opportunities
to direct their own learning (the legislative style), use their creative and critical
thinking (the judicial style), set priorities for various tasks (the hierarchical style),
and view issues from a global perspective (the global style). Even though Tibetan
teachers scored lower than Nanjing teachers on Type I styles, within the Tibetan
teachers themselves, they also showed a stronger preference for students to use
Type I learning styles, but not Type II. Results from the present study were
consistent with those found in Zhang, Fu, and Jiao (2008). Zhang et al. (2008)
further demonstrated that regardless of teachers’ age, gender, and other
demographic characteristics, teachers preferred their students to use Type I
intellectual styles in learning.
The types of teaching styles that students value, as is the case with most
students, also reflect their expectations of teaching provided in the
teaching-learning process. Students prefer their teachers to use Type I intellectual
styles. For example, as Zhang and her colleagues’ studies (Zhang, 2004c, 2006a;
Zhang et al., 2005) indicated, after taking into account variables such as students’
age, gender, self-rated abilities, and their family background, students in Hong
Kong, mainland China, and the United States expressed a strong preference for
Type I teaching styles. In Spain, it was consistently shown that students expressed
higher levels of satisfaction with those courses when teachers taught in Type I
teaching styles (Betoret, 2007). Students preferred teachers to create instructional
environments that promoted their understanding of the content; encouraged them
to create, criticize, and explore different issues and areas of learning; and provided
them with opportunities to try new ways of dealing with tasks and participate
47
actively in these tasks (Cakmak, 2011; Khangaghi & Rajaei, 2011; Mitsis & Foley,
2009; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008; Volpentesta, et al., 2010). All of these
studies consistently showed that students valued Type I teaching styles; they had
positive perceptions of an instructional environment that contributed to their
development of Type I styles in learning.
Taking all findings together suggests that Type I intellectual styles seem to be
valued by many teachers and students. Thus, intellectual styles are value-laden but
not value-free. Because of social constraints, however, there are times when
teachers are required to teach in an old-fashioned, conservative way, where Type
II intellectual styles are encouraged. For example, while preparing students for
examinations, teachers often have to limit their teaching styles and follow rigid
curricula so as to ensure that students obtain the best possible results. This
happened more frequently in Eastern societies (e.g., in Hong Kong and the
Philippines) and in schools with a religious background (Bernardo, et al., 2002;
Sternberg, 1994), where the instructional environment was designed in a
norm-conforming manner that required students to follow rules and learn
structured tasks. Thus, students and teachers employ styles consistent with the
demands of their instructional environment, indicating that both teachers and
students value styles according to the requirements of the situation and time they
are employed, but not according to their preferences. In this way, styles are
value-differentiated. Some teachers and students use Type II styles because of
environmental constraints, but from another perspective, it is also possible that
they are not proficient at using Type I intellectual styles in practical situations
such as classroom learning, so that they do not develop a strong preference for
Type I intellectual styles in the education process.
Teachers and students prefer to use Type I intellectual styles in teaching and
learning, respectively. They also prefer each other to use Type I styles in the
teaching-learning process. However, because of environmental constraints,
48
teachers and students use Type II intellectual styles in practical situations. With
due notice to this conflicting situation, Study One of the present research
investigates teachers’ preferred learning styles among students and students’
preferences for their teachers’ intellectual styles in teaching. The results of this
study will facilitate the design of an experimental study, aiming to train teachers
to create an instructional environment that consists of the types of styles that both
teachers and students prefer. In the next section, empirical findings concerning
another issue—style malleability—will be reviewed.
2.2.2
Malleability of Intellectual Styles
Style malleability is a fundamental issue that may have a profound effect on
the application of intellectual styles to education, what makes an important
difference in school performance (Alumran, 2008; Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000;
Drysdale, et al., 2001; Sun, 2000; Zhang, 2001a, 2002e, 2004d). Students with
different styles of learning use their ability in different ways, so they respond
differentially to the demands of the nature of tasks or the stylistic patterns required
in different instructional environments. However, students use certain learning
styles that fit well in one instructional environment but not in another (Sternberg,
1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Therefore, students need some flexibility to
adjust their intellectual styles to a variety of situations (i.e., tasks, activities, or
instructional environments). It is believed that one’s flexibility in using his/her
styles allows him/her to solve problems or to deal with tasks effectively. If
students are unable to use their styles flexibly, they might have difficulties in
learning.
The accumulation of research evidence enriches our understanding of the
nature of intellectual styles (whether or not styles are modifiable) and how to
apply the notion of styles to education. This sub-section is composed of two parts:
(a) Intellectual styles are modifiable by teaching and training and (b) Intellectual
49
styles are malleable by socialization factors.
2.2.2.1
Intellectual styles are modifiable by teaching and training
Teachers construct different instructional environments to facilitate the
development of specific learning styles in their students. As Sternberg (1997)
suggested, different types of teaching styles may cause students to internalize
many of the attributes that they have observed in teachers and that they have
learned in the environment. It is therefore believed that teachers may socialize
students’ styles in the direction of their expectations by creating an instructional
environment with particular stylistic demands. Style modification can be
understood in the context of research into how different instructional
environments influence students’ learning styles and how educational programs
teach students related skills for developing specific styles. The following two
sub-sections continue the discussion on the effect of instructional environment
and the effect of teaching relevant skills.
The effect of instructional environment. Students are required to perform
differently in various instructional environments. Over long periods of time and
across many activities, students make adaptive changes to fit in with the
instructional environment. In the past decade, researchers have conducted
experimental studies with the goal of increasing students’ use of Type I
intellectual styles by creating different kinds of instructional environments, for
example, problem-based (Newble & Clarke, 1986; Nijhuis, Segers, & Gijselaers,
2005; Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006), portfolio-based (Gordon & Debus,
2002), action-based (Wilson & Fowler, 2005), active-based (Sivan, Leung, Woon,
&
Dember,
2000),
activating-based
(Struyven,
et
al.,
2006),
and
hypermedia-based (Chen, et al., 2011; Fiorina, Antonietti, Clombo, & Bartolomeo,
2007) environments. Findings from these studies have shown that intellectual
styles are malleable, and that they can therefore be modified by learning in
50
different instructional environments.
For example, in the field of medical education, Newble and Clark (1986)
investigated students’ learning approaches in a traditional school and in a school
that had adopted problem-based learning strategies. They found that students
gradually developed a deep approach to learning within the latter environment,
where their curiosity was raised and communication encouraged. In addition, with
the advancement of technology over the past decade, research into the effects of
web-based instructional environments on students’ learning has been rapidly
developing. An increasing amount of research in the area has been comparing
students’ learning in a web-based environment with that in traditional instructional
settings. For example, Fan (2006) examined the changes of students’ learning
styles in hypermedia and in traditional instructional environments. He found that
students’ learning styles in the traditional groups were significantly different from
those in the hypermedia environment at the time of post-test. Findings from this
research were consistent with other experimental findings (Broad, et al., 2004;
Choi, et al., 2008; Graff, 2003), reporting that students could develop more
adaptive Type I intellectual styles in learning. Specifically, findings from Broad et
al. (2004) indicated that learning was more autonomous after students had
acquired various problem-solving skills. It was further reported that the
web-based instructional environment helped to enhance students’ use of reflective
styles, while they used less pragmatic ways of solving problems.
The studies discussed above have more clearly confirmed that styles are
modifiable. Thus, styles can be modified by the stylistic features of various
instructional environments (Miller, 2005; Newble & Clarke, 1986; Yeh, 2007).
However, one might argue that students may have high or low ability levels,
which render them more or less able to make adaptive changes in learning, but not
in response to the instructional environment itself. It is noteworthy that the form
of an instructional environment does not make students more or less able to deal
51
with a task. In turn, it does determine how many of a student’s abilities are being
optimized in the task (Sternberg, 1997). Students perform differently in the
instructional environment because different skills or particular ways of solving
problems are required of them, but not necessarily because some have more
ability than others.
Research evidence of how students modify their styles to adapt themselves to
the stylistic demands of different instructional environments is important to
understanding how students’ learning styles are socialized. Taking a dynamic
perspective on understanding how learning styles are related to different parts of
an instructional environment, Renzulli and Dai (2001) suggested that students
with different kinds of learning styles fit better in certain kinds of instructional
environments. The impact of the environment on students’ development has been
well-established, and research on training programs is thus becoming more
important, aiming at experimentally testing students’ development of certain
styles of learning.
The effects of teaching relevant skills. It is becoming apparent that students
of the present generation do find creativity-generating ways of learning
meaningful. With the goal of obtaining the desired learning outcome and
development, an education process that includes the construction of an
instructional environment should be designed to take into account students’
thoughts and preferences. As Jablokow and Kirton (2009) suggested, students are
more ready to change their intellectual styles and accept those changes if the
changes match with their preferences, personal and educational needs, and the
educational system. Therefore, to facilitate students’ development of Type I styles
in the education process, teaching and learning should be designed in a way that
allows teachers and students to use and practice these styles (Sternberg, 1997).
There are many methods of promoting Type I intellectual styles, one of which is
for teachers to teach students skills that are relevant to and effective for
52
developing Type I intellectual styles.
Biggs (2001) suggested that a good teaching plan or program could develop
students with Type I learning styles. Students could make adaptive changes in
their styles consistent with the objectives of the training program, while relevant
skills selected to develop specific aspects could produce students with a specific
style of learning or enhance their flexibility in employing styles in learning. For
example, with the aim of developing students’ field-independent style in learning,
Linden (1973) conducted a meditation program to train students’ alertness to the
environment and their awareness of experiences. Over the course of 18 weeks, 26
students in the treatment group gained on the measure of the field-independent
style, indicating that students developed that particular style. It was possible to
attribute development of the field-independent style to the effects of the
meditation course. Research results from Rush and Moore’s (1991) study
supported Linden’s finding. They designed a restructuring training program
involving discussion sessions on restructuring strategies, lectures, and practical
work, and reported that, by training these specific skills and knowledge in
introductory psychology courses, field-dependent students became more like the
field-independent students.
Some programs are not intentionally designed to develop certain types of
learning style among students; however, there are several findings available to
show that such programs have a training effect on students’ intellectual styles of
learning. For example, Koo and Choi (2005) found that training in reasoning in an
Oriental medicine course could develop students with holistic thinking styles and
weaken their analytic ways of thinking. More importantly, they also indicated that
the training effect increased as the amount of training increased. From another
perspective, the training effects of certain skills or programs are not always
positive. Mitchell and Cahill (2005) investigated the training effects of a
non-academic program at the U.S. Naval Academy on students’ cognitive styles.
53
By comparing scores on Kirton’s (1976) Adaptation-Innovation Inventory of
students who had or had not dropped out of the program, it was found that the
scores of students who had stayed on were lower than those who had left the
course. In other words, students were substantially less innovative after training
by norm-conforming materials and instructional methods. These findings
suggested that a training program could help students to develop a particular style
of learning. Taking all findings together, the contention is upheld that styles are
modifiable and thus can be shaped or developed by different training programs.
To some extent, the outcome of education is dependent on how teachers plan their
programs and design their instructional environments. Training programs that
teach specific skills and instructional environments that encourage particular
styles could help the development of particular intellectual styles in students.
These experimentally designed studies support the contention that styles are
malleable and can be trained. It is also believed that by training students with
specific skills and knowledge, they will develop styles that are consistent with
their teachers’ expectations. The findings that have been discussed in this
sub-section relate to two focuses of the present research, namely the issues of
style value and of style malleability concerning the nature of intellectual styles.
Most of the interventions have been intentionally designed to train students with
Type I rather than Type II intellectual styles. This body of work has indicated that
styles are largely value-laden, but not value-free. Additionally, the experimental
effect on the learning process of deliberate training of students in modifying their
intellectual styles is to some extent positive. These findings have demonstrated
that students are able to modify their intellectual styles in learning if there is a
demand for change of style within a specific training program. Thus, intellectual
styles are more state-like, but relatively stable (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006).
Although empirical investigations on intellectual styles have dealt with the
nature of styles, some limitations have clearly emerged. First, the experimental
54
studies discussed in this section are not convincing in their support of training
effects on intellectual styles, and there is a need to increase the body of literature
in this area to provide more understanding of students’ learning and development.
Second, there is a notable lack of qualitative and longitudinal studies; only a few
instances of such work provided qualitative data to explore the nature of
intellectual styles.
In an effort to optimize students’ learning and development and to carry
forward research work in the field of styles, the present research is experimental
and longitudinally designed to investigate the nature of intellectual styles through
examining the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and career
interests. The research also takes account of teachers’ and students’ demographic
information so as to understand the true experimental effect on students’ learning
styles and on their career interests.
2.2.2.2
Intellectual styles are malleable through socialization
In addition to research on the training effects, there is another way of joining
the debate over the issue of malleability of styles. Empirical evidence has also
demonstrated that styles can vary as a function of experiences. These experiences
are associated with many socialization factors, such as culture (Bernardo, et al.,
2002; Zhang, Jiao, & Postiglione, 2004; Zhang & Postiglione, 2001), gender
(Alumran, 2008; Sadler-Smith & Tsang, 1998; Severiens & Ten Dam, 1994, 1997),
and parents (Spera, 2005; Yanmamoto & Holloway, 2010).
Intellectual styles and culture. Cultures reflect differences in beliefs, values,
and religious practices. These cultural differences have been shown to play an
important role in the development of and the socialization of people’s intellectual
styles (Witkin & Berry, 1975; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Existing empirical
evidence has clearly indicated that students from different cultures prefer to use
particular styles in dealing with their daily tasks and solving problems.
55
Several empirical studies (Auyeung & Sands, 1996; Boyatzis & Mainemelis,
2000; Geiger & Pinto, 1991; McMurray, 1988; Ruble, 1990; Smith & Kolb, 1986;
Yamazaki & Kayes, 2005; Yuen & Lee, 1994), based on learning styles
conceptualized in Kolb’s learning theory (1976, 1984) have supported the
socialization effect of cultures on students’ learning styles. Results from these
studies revealed that Japanese and Austrian students were oriented to use the
diverging learning styles (Auyeung & Sands, 1996; McMurray, 1988; Yamazaki &
Kayes, 2005); Singaporean, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese students were more likely
to employ assimilating learning styles (Auyeung & Sands, 1996; Yuen & Lee,
1994); and American students tended to use converging learning styles (Boyatzis
& Mainemelis, 2000; Geiger & Pinto, 1991; Ruble, 1990; Smith & Kolb, 1986;
Yuen & Lee, 1994). Findings from these studies showed that students with
different cultural backgrounds preferred to learn in different modes and by using
various abilities in dealing with learning tasks and solving problems.
In general, researchers claimed that these differences in learning styles
among students in Eastern and Western cultures were affected by the social
cultural and educational systems valued by each country. For example, the
learning styles of Japanese students were reflected in their intuitive mode of
thinking and in the value of caution, deliberation, and silence (Doi, 1979; Hayashi,
1999; Linowes, 1993; Nugent, 1981). The learning tendency of Asian students,
especially in Singapore and Hong Kong, might reflect the educational system’s
overwhelming emphasis on training in mathematical skills and knowledge
(Auyeung & Sands, 1996; Yamazaki, 2005). American students’ learning styles
were oriented towards the emphasis on the rational mode of thinking that concerns
analysis, logic, and reasoning in the teaching-learning process (Hall, 1976;
Hayashi, 1999; Nugent, 1981). The socialization effects of culture on intellectual
styles were also found in school culture and learning contexts. Since each
educational system has its own reward system, the instructional environments,
56
learning activities, and assessment strategies that take place in specific contexts
also contribute to students’ use of different intellectual styles (Fan, Zhang, &
Watkins, 2010; Zhang, 2001c).
Interestingly, people’s uses of intellectual styles are not only different based
on countries but also based on ethnic cultures. Researchers investigated the
relationships of students’ intellectual styles to their ethnic cultures in the United
States and China. In the United States, with its diverse cultures, multiple races,
and various ethnicities (Yamazaki, 2005), researchers found that Mexicans and
African Americans tended to use the field-dependent style (Saracho, 1983;
Saracho & Gerstl, 1992), whereas Native Americans and Asian Americans were
more likely to employ the field-independent style (Huang & Chao, 1995; Saracho,
1997). Furthermore, Zhang and colleagues investigated thinking styles among
students in different cities in China; their findings demonstrated that students in
Tibet scored significantly higher on Type II learning styles than did students in
Nanjing, Shanghai, and Beijing (Zhang, et al., 2004; Zhang, 2011; Zhang, et al.,
2008). Students from these three cities preferred to use styles that allowed creative
thinking (Type I styles). Findings from all these studies demonstrated that
different cultural systems, contexts, and educational systems might have
substantial effects on students’ use and development of particular types of
intellectual styles.
Intellectual styles and gender. Evidence for significant gender differences in
intellectual styles has been well-documented in the literature. Voluminous studies
have detected clear, consistent gender-based pattern differences in using
intellectual styles. Findings demonstrated that males were more likely to employ
Type I intellectual styles and females tended to use Type II intellectual styles in
their learning (Alumran, 2008; Evans & Waring, 2008, 2009, 2011; Hlawaty, 2008;
Riding & Cheema, 1991; Sadler-Smith, 1996; Sadler-Smith & Tsang, 1998; Zhang
& Fan, 2007; Zhang & Sachs, 1997).
57
For example, Evans and Waring (2011) studied the intellectual styles of 108
students with education majors by using the Cognitive Styles Index (Allinson &
Hayes, 1996). They found significant gender differences between Type I and Type
II intellectual styles among male and female students. Male students employed
intuitive styles (Type I) and female students used analytical styles (Type II). This
gender difference was supported by their previous studies conducted in 2008 and
2009. In another study, Zhang and Sachs (1997) employed the Thinking Styles
Inventory (TSI) to investigate learning styles of 92 university students. Results
indicated that male students scored significantly higher than female students on
Type I learning styles.
Many researchers have attributed these gender differences to the stereotypical
gender roles shared among both Western and Eastern cultures. Male students are
expected to be kinesthetic, independent, important decision makers, and active;
therefore, they tend to employ styles that are more creativity-generating and
cognitively complex (Amir & Jelas, 2010; Miller, Finley, & MckKinley, 1990;
Reis, 1987; Tavris, 1992). Female students are more conventional, tend to make
minor decisions, and are expected to be obedient; therefore, they are more likely
to employ styles that are more norm-conforming and cognitively simple (Balkis &
Isiker, 2005; Connor, Schackman, & Serbin, 1978; Hofstede, 1998; Tseng, Cheng,
& Nishizono, 2005).
However, some research findings demonstrated the interaction effects
between gender and age (another primary socialization factor in intellectual styles)
on intellectual styles (Bosacki, Innerd, & Towson, 1997; Sadler-Smith & Tsang,
1998; Sternberg, 1988, 1997). For example, Sadler-Smith and Tsang (1998)
investigated the relationship between learning approach and the two socialization
factors of age and gender among students in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.
They identified the effect of an interaction between age and gender upon learning
approach among students in Hong Kong. Results of their study indicated that
58
older female students scored significantly lower on the deep learning approach
scale than did their younger counterparts. In contrast, older male students scored
significantly higher on the deep learning approach scale than did the younger male
students. To obtain relatively more accurate results, the experimental study of the
present research was limited to recruiting only students in Grade 10 (Form Four).
On the one hand, students in Grade 10 are the pioneers of the current Hong Kong
educational reform, and on the other hand, this arrangement could avoid an
interaction effect of gender with other socialization factors (especially age).
Intellectual styles and parents. Parents are an important socializing agent in
adolescent development; they serve as a secure base for adolescents to solve daily
challenges and stresses (Nickerson & Nagle, 2005; Steinberg, 1990), especially
during a period in which students are experiencing increasing pressure to be
academically successful. This stressful context increases students’ needs for
parents’ comfort and supports (Bosmans, Braet, Beyers, Leeuwen, & Vlierberghe,
2011). During this stage, some students more easily receive values, goals, skills,
beliefs, and attitudes transmitted by their parents (Spera, 2005). Parents may
affect children’s socialization in many different ways; the socialization of
intellectual styles is only one of them.
The socializing effect of parental intellectual styles was found in only a few
research studies (Laosa, 1980; Miller, 1994; Zhang, 2003a). Findings from these
studies demonstrated significant relationships between parents’ and students’
intellectual styles. For example, Zhang (2003) examined the relationships between
232 students’ and their parents’ thinking styles. She found that parents’ Type I
thinking styles were positively related to students’ use of Type I thinking styles in
learning and were negatively related to their use of Type II learning styles. Miller
(1994) compared the personality types of 40 parents and their children (20
mothers and daughters, 20 fathers and sons). Results revealed that both mothers’
and fathers’ personality types were similar to their daughters’ and sons’ types,
59
respectively.
Although the investigation of the relationships between parents’ and
children’s intellectual styles was limited, the parental influence on adolescence
development has been well-documented in adolescent development. Interestingly,
some researchers further pointed out that fathers and mothers played different
roles in the socializing process (Bosmans, et al., 2011; Bosmans, De Raedt, &
Braet, 2007; Carlson, Raczniak, & Wertley, 2011). In Bosmens et al.’s (2007)
study, they found that students oriented their attention and attachment more
strongly toward their mothers. That is, mothers might be a more powerful
socializing agent in adolescent development than fathers.
2.2.3
Intellectual Styles and Students’ Development of Career
Interests
To ensure students’ outstanding academic achievement, many education
processes, including the development of subject materials, instructional methods,
or assessment strategies, continue to be designed in a teacher-controlled manner.
Thus, students’ preferences and demands have frequently been ignored in the
education process. Ennis, Cothran, Davidson, Loftus, Owens, Swanson and
Hopsicker (1997) contended that this circumstance reflected a deficit of
curriculum planning, in which the developmental appropriateness and
characteristics of students have not been considered.
According to Erikson’s (1963, 1968) psychosocial theory of development,
students in the age of adolescence are in the stage of identity development (Stage
5). They are preoccupied with concerns such as “Who am I” and “What am I to
believe.” They are at the same time experiencing conflicts and risks, and
exploring and discovering various ideological beliefs and roles (e.g., occupational
and social roles) that best fit their views of themselves (Dollinger, Dollinger, &
Centeno, 2005; Zhang, 2011; Zhang & He, 2011). Through education, students
60
begin to form a particular facet of “self” through learning certain attitudes,
acquiring specific skills, and attaining unique achievement. This process of
exploration is extremely important for adolescents to develop an occupational
identity (Albert, 1990) through which they accumulate experiences to develop
career interests and to make career choices.
Career interests and cognitive competence are critical aspects in adolescent
development, and both aspects are developed within the context of school
(Munley, 1975; Tiedeman & O' Hara, 1963). As discussed in a previous section,
individuals’ intellectual styles (e.g., learning styles) are closely related to their
cognitive development and the way that they use their abilities. Chickering and
Reisser (1993) and Thomas and Chickering (1984) believed that a systematically
organized educational program could facilitate students’ learning and development.
Therefore, in the light of developing students with specific learning styles and
particular career interests, it is an advantage to conduct an experimental study to
examine if students develop their own learning styles and career interests in a
specially designed instructional environment (typified by particular types of
teaching styles). This section focuses the discussion on the two important aspects
of students’ development: (a) intellectual styles and career interests and (b)
teaching/learning styles and development of career interests.
2.2.3.1
Intellectual styles and career interests
Intellectual styles intertwine with psychosocial development in a complicated
way. As Erikson (1963) argued, individuals’ cognitive competence should be
developed coincident with their psychosocial development. Albert (1990) stated
that individuals’ psychosocial development begins when they start recognizing
their skills, their special interests, and their unique accomplishments. Zhang (2011)
also suggested that individuals’ cognitive competence and psychosocial
development depend on their preferred ways of processing information and using
61
their abilities (i.e., intellectual styles), which affect the way they interact with the
environment and approach the world, and in turn influence their psychosocial
development such as the development of career interests.
The link between intellectual styles and career interests has drawn the
attention of many scholars. Many of the empirical findings in the field of career
development have been obtained by employing Witkin’s (1962) perceptual styles
and Holland’s (1973) theory of career interests (also known as the RIASEC
theory). The latter is a remarkable theory for understanding students’ career
interests and their interaction with different environments. Alvi et al. (1988), Khan
and Alvi (1986), and Khan et al. (1985) have focused their investigation on the
relationships between students’ career interests and perceptual styles. Although
significant relationships were found between the two constructs, the construct of
field–dependence/field independence was largely criticized as ability, but not as
style. Subsequently, researchers attempted to conduct empirical research to
investigate the associations of Holland’s career interests with various intellectual
styles, for example, thinking styles (Balkis & Isiker, 2005; Zhang, 2000a, 2001b,
2004b), mode of thinking (Zhang & Fan, 2007), cognitive styles (Ford, 1995;
Sadler-Smith, 1999; Salder-Smith, 1997), and learning approaches (Zhang,
2004b).
For example, Zhang (2000, 2001) explored the relationships between
learning styles and career interests. It was consistently found that the social and
enterprising career interest types were positively related to the external and
judicial styles; the artistic career interest type was negatively correlated with the
conservative style; the conventional career interest type was positively correlated
with the executive style. Furthermore, following Torrance’s (1981) concept of
brain dominance, Zhang and Fan (2006) investigated the predictive validity of
students’ modes of thinking on their career interests and found that those with an
analytic mode of thinking (Type II intellectual style) tended to score higher on the
62
conventional scale. Meanwhile, a holistic mode of thinking (Type I intellectual
style) significantly predicted students’ realistic, investigative, artistic, enterprising,
and social types of career interests. These results demonstrated that students
tended to employ learning styles that matched their career interests. These results
also justified that intellectual styles and career interests are related to each other,
yet the results did not explain how they affect each other.
The idea of learning styles and the RIASEC theory make teachers consider
seriously what kinds of instructional environment/developmental program will
facilitate students’ development of specific career interests and what kinds are not
as effective. Given the two important variables influencing students’ development
(teaching styles and instructional environment), the ways in which students can
develop specific types of career interest might become clearer. Nonetheless,
findings from existing research have revealed only the general relationships
between intellectual styles and career interests (Holland, Fritzsche, & Powell,
1994). Following the limited research found in the literature, the present research
moved forward to investigate if teachers’ teaching styles affected students’
development of particular types of career interests. This kind of experimental
study may able to justify the contention that teachers’ intellectual styles of
teaching can have a significant impact on their students’ psychosocial
development.
2.2.3.2
Teaching styles and development of career interests
Renzulli and Dai (2001) and Lucas, Henze and Donato (1990) claimed that
teachers, students, and the instructional environment were all essential
components in initiating the act of learning, and that missing any one of them
could have a direct bearing on the education process. However, these components
could be mutually beneficial if teachers took account of students’ needs,
characteristics, and opinions (Konings, Brand-Gruwel, & Merrienboer, 2010). It is
63
believed that students will learn in an enjoyable way if the instructional
environment is varied and relevant to their preferences and needs (Davidson, 1990;
Fitzgibbon, Heywood, & Cameron, 1991; Saracho, 1990).
In general, as Sternberg (1997) suggested, a fit between teachers’ teaching
styles and students’ learning styles is desirable, so that the teaching-learning
process is constructed in a way that rewards specific types of learning styles and
career interests that students would like to develop. However, not much research
on this issue was found in the literature. Zhang’s (2007a) study is a valuable one;
she examined the issue of teacher-student style match by investigating the
relationships between students’ career interest types and their preferences for
teachers’ teaching styles. Results from her study indicated that students employed
learning styles and preferred their teachers to use teaching styles that were
consistent with their career interests. More explicitly, students with the
conventional type of career interest preferred Type II teaching styles
(norm-conforming) and students with the investigative type of career interest
preferred Type I teaching styles (creativity-generating). Based on these findings,
one would be interested in understanding whether or not students would develop
career interests consistent with their learning styles if students could develop Type
I learning styles in a Type I instructional environment.
As indicated in the discussion of the previous section, teachers’ teaching
styles could have a significant impact on their students’ psychosocial development.
Thus, it is possible that the way teachers prefer to teach could be perceived as a
viable means not only to further understand students’ learning styles, but also to
comprehend their development of career interests. In this way, it could be argued
that students could develop specific types of career interest if teachers offered
them certain instructional environments or developmental programs in which
particular learning styles are rewarded.
64
In summary, both teachers and students have their choices of intellectual
styles to manage their teaching and learning activities. However, the question of
how and how well these styles are applicable to facilitating the teaching-learning
process is dependent on specific tasks, situations, and time factors. Moreover,
styles show different values when teachers or students vary in age, gender, and
experience. In general, both teachers and students prefer Type I intellectual styles
in the education process, preferring to teach or learn in creative ways. These
findings have been discussed and reviewed in various circumstances and
personal/situational dynamics of the school environment, which further clarifies
the issues of style value and style malleability as they relate to the nature of
intellectual styles.
Teachers need to plan an instructional environment while considering their
students’ stylistic features in the learning process, so as to optimize students’
abilities and provide them with the greatest possible benefit. To understand better
how teachers may develop an instructional environment to facilitate students’
learning and development, addressing teachers’ teaching styles and students’
learning styles, as well as their preferred types of thinking styles in education, is
one of many ways. Reviewing the notion that learning styles can be modified in
particular learning contexts, those findings have signified that intellectual styles
are malleable, and thus the styles of teachers in teaching and of students in
learning are socialized to different working environments and can be developed
by training programs. However, a cross-sectional investigation cannot provide
further reliable support for the notion that styles can be changed. Experimentally
designed research is therefore needed. The present research is designed to
examine the impact of teaching styles on learning styles in an experimental study.
In the next theme, another important personal variable, namely career interest
types, will be reviewed.
65
2.3
Theme Three: Students’ Career Interest Types
How students learn and how well they learn are dependent on what
educational opportunities teachers offer them (Ennis, 1991; Ennis, Chen, & Ross,
1992; Ennis & Hooper, 1988). Based on Sternberg’s (1997) theory of mental
self-government, teachers manage their teaching duties in a way that is consistent
with their teaching styles. Findings have supported that teachers’ teaching styles
influence their ways of designing an instructional environment or an educational
program that encourages or discourages students’ development of Type I learning
styles. In other words, teachers’ styles of managing and designing their teaching
plans (i.e., in a creativity-generating or norm-conforming instructional
environment) could influence students’ learning and development. Therefore, it is
reasonable to predict that other positive outcomes of their learning experiences
(e.g., widening the choices of their career interests) could also result from
teachers’ preferred ways of providing a carefully planned, clearly sequenced
instructional environment.
It has been emphasized that developing students’ career interest types is
another important issue in students’ career development (Zhang, 2004b).
Therefore, the end product of education should not be limited to developing
students with advanced cognitive abilities and skills to obtain high academic
achievements, but should also equip them with the knowledge and ability to make
career decisions. This theme of the literature review focuses on Holland’s (1973,
1985; 1994; 1994) theory of career interest types, in which students’ interests,
values, skills, and abilities are important components in determining students’
development of their career interests. This theme is organized into the following
four parts: (1) description of the six career interest types, (2) a capsule history of
the theory, (3) career interest types in education and in research, and (4) new
perspectives on intellectual styles and career interest types.
66
2.3.1
Description of the Six Career Interest Types
People not only differ from others in ability or personality, but also in their
interests in various types of careers. Holland’s (1973, 1985, 1994) theory of career
interest types is an influential guide in the field of career development, which
helps people to make career choices, to achieve satisfaction in their jobs, and to
achieve vocational success.
The RIASEC career interest types assumes that people will search for a work
environment that allows them to exercise their skills and abilities, to express their
attitudes and values, and to take on problems and roles (Holland, 1985). People’s
career interests can be characterized as falling into six types, corresponding to six
types of occupational environment. Each career interest type works particularly
well in its corresponding environment, and thus the interaction between a career
interest type and the characteristics of an environment could determine people’s
vocational behaviors (e.g., develop particular types of career interest, make career
decisions, involvement or change in the kind/level of work). These six career
interest types have been given the same names as the corresponding environments,
namely the realistic (R), investigative (I), artistic (A), social (S), enterprising (E),
and conventional (C) career interest types. Each environment provides people
with opportunities, activities, tasks, and roles that are congruent with their
competencies, interests, and beliefs.
People of the realistic career interest type do well in a realistic environment,
where mechanical skills are required to control machines and manipulate objects.
The realistic type likes to work with things more than with people and to be
engaged in norm-conforming jobs, such as an electrician’s or a machine operator’s.
People of the investigative type flourish in an investigative environment where a
person’s analytical and scientific bent is encouraged. Such people like to explore
and understand things or events, and to be engaged in scientific work, such as that
of a physicist or geologist. People with the artistic, social, enterprising or
67
conventional types of career interest perform well in the artistic, social,
enterprising, and conventional environments, respectively. The first of these four
has artistic skills and enjoys creative work, following a career such as music or
writing. People of the social type are comfortable interacting with people, and like
social careers such as teaching or counseling. Similar to people of the social
career interest type, enterprising people enjoy directing others, and will generally
want to pursue management work and become an executive or supervisor. Finally,
people of the conventional type like following orderly routines and meeting clear
standards, and seek conventional careers such as bookkeeping or banking.
Figure 2.1 A Hexagonal Model for Interpreting the Person-environment Relationships. From
the Self-Directed Search Technical Manual (p.4), by J. L. Holland, B. A. Fritzche, and A. B.
Powell, 1994, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Copyright © 1985, 1987,
1994 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., Odessa, FL.
As shown in Figure 2.1, the six career interest types are organized in the
RIASEC order to form a regular hexagonal structure (Cole, Whitney, & Holland,
1971). The hexagon provides an organized framework to interpret how an
agreement between a person’s career interest and an occupational environment
(i.e., the degree of congruence) may lead to a satisfying career decision,
68
involvement, and achievement. In the same way, the RIASEC hexagon is also
useful to determine the stability of change in the kind/level of work a person
performs over a lifetime by estimating the degree of consistency within a person
or an environment (Holland, 1985; Reardon & Lenz, 1998).
2.3.2
A Capsule History of The Theory and the Use of the
Self-Directed Search
Holland’s interest in the RIASEC career interest types and the Self-Directed
Search (SDS) developed in part as a response to the frustrations of psychologists
and career counselors who claimed that existing career-counseling tools were
ineffective because the scores and information relating to one’s interests and
occupational aspirations were frequently incomplete (Reardon & Lenz, 1998).
With this observation in mind, Holland began to develop the Vocational
Preferences Inventory (VPI) in 1953. After eight revisions had been carried out on
the VPI, it became the research tool that inductively verified and motivated the
development of the RIASEC theory and its related assessment tool (i.e., the SDS)
in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (Reardon & Lenz, 1998).
After investigating the RIASEC career interest types and the SDS for almost
20 years, Holland developed the SDS booklet in 1971, a self-administered,
self-scored, and self-interpreted vocational assessment booklet. Meanwhile, the
Comprehensive Occupational Classification was also being developed. After the
publication of the SDS and other allied materials, the notion of the RIASEC
theory and the SDS gained popularity in the field of career counseling and career
development, and they have since served as practical tools in many vocational
services. After intensive investigation of these measures in the career development
field, numerous imperfections have been discovered. Accordingly, the SDS has
undergone several revisions, in 1977, 1985, and 1994. In each new version,
several formats, wordings, and scoring schemes were revised. Up to now, the SDS
69
has been produced in three revised versions (Holland, 1977, 1985, 1994). It has
been adapted into four forms (Forms R, E, CD, and Career Explorer) and various
languages (e.g., Chinese, Spanish, and Japanese) to suit people with diverse
demands. For the past 30 years, the SDS has become and continues to be one of
the leading instruments in the field of career development and career counseling.
Holland’s career interest types have received much attention in the
educational field since their development in the 1970s, given their importance to
students’ career counseling and career development. However, gender bias and
cultural differences have been reported in research on the SDS, and researchers
have put much effort into investigating the psychometric properties of the
instrument. Regarding the gender biases, previous research demonstrated that
male and female students scored higher on certain career interest types (Holland,
et al., 1994; Khan & Alvi, 1991; Yu & Alvi, 1996). For example, Holland (1985,
1994) reported that male students scored higher on the realistic and investigative
career interest types in the SDS test, whereas female students scored higher on the
artistic and social career interest types. Turner and Lapan (2002) investigated the
career interests of middle-school adolescents; they reported that male students
showed greater interest in the realistic type whereas female students showed
greater interest in the social type. Findings in Turner and Lapan’s study were
consistent with other studies (Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997; Tang, 2001), addressing
an issue of gender-typing career interests.
Culture could also make a difference in students’ career interests. Cross
cultural findings have demonstrated that students’ career interests between
samples from two cultures were different. For example, in validating the RIASEC
hexagon across Japanese and American cultures, Tracey, Watanbe, and Schneider
(1997) found few structural differences in the hexagonal model that were
attributable to the differences between the two cultures. Although there was no
difference in fitting students’ career interest types on the hexagon in the U.S.
70
sample, a difference did exist in the Japanese sample. Undoubtedly, because of the
many obvious differences in emphasis across the two cultures, the RIASEC theory
(developed originally in American culture) fitted only partly with Japanese culture.
Similar cultural differences were reported in other studies (Farh, Leong, & Law,
1998; Leung & Hou, 2001).
Researchers also validated the SDS in cross-cultural contexts (Tracey, N.
Watanabe, & Schneider, 1997; Yang, Lance, & Hui, 2006; Yang, Stoke, & Hui,
2005; Yu & Alvi, 1996), and results from these studies proved that the instrument
was reliable and valid for assessing people’s career interest types in different
cultures, including Hong Kong. Moreover, research based on the RIASEC theory
and the SDS has been conducted in different areas of psychology, education, and
other related fields, many of them concerned with career exploration and career
counseling (Farmer, et al., 1998; Holland, 1996). Researchers were also motivated
to investigate people’s career interests against other personal characteristics such
as personality (Fruyt & Mervielde, 1997; Larson, Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2001;
Zhang, 2003b) and intellectual styles (Atkinson, Murrell, & Winters, 1990; Balkis
& Isiker, 2005; Guisande & Parmamo, 2007; Zhang, 2000a, 2001b, 2004c). More
research on students’ career interest types is reviewed in the following section.
2.3.3
Career Interest Types in Education and Research
For the past three decades or so, the RIASEC theory has served as a basis for
educational tests of students’ career interests so as to provide them with
educational and career guidance. The RIASEC theory and its assessment tool, the
SDS, are promising in understanding students’ learning and development,
particularly when educational and career choices are being made. To address the
practical application of the RIASEC career interest types in academic settings,
career interest types and educational choices and the development of students’
career interests are discussed in the following sub-sections.
71
2.3.3.1
Career interest types and educational choices
Grounded in the RIASEC theory, some researchers believed that a natural
match should exist between a person’s career interests and the environment (i.e.,
the degree of congruence), assuming that people with different types of career
interest require different environments to achieve successful experiences (Holland,
1996; Yu & Alvi, 1996). For example, a realistic person will do well in a realistic
environment, and this will lead to higher levels of satisfaction and achievement.
Empirical findings have employed both the theory and the hexagonal model in
helping students to make educational/career decisions and predict their types of
career interest.
For example, Leung and Hou (2001) employed the SDS (Holland, Fritzsche,
& Powell, 1994; Holland & Powell, 1994) to examine the relationship between
students’ career interest types and their choices of academic tracks
(science-subject or arts-subject oriented, for instance) among 777 high-school
students in Hong Kong. They found that students who had high scores on the
artistic and social career interest types preferred to take arts-related subjects such
as social science or languages, whereas those students who had high scores on the
realistic and investigative career interest types preferred science and technical
subjects. Yu and Alvi (1996) aimed at finding whether or not a match in the
person-environment relationship occurred among Chinese students; they
examined the relationship between students’ career interest types and their fields
of study. Findings have demonstrated that students in engineering, computer
science, and accounting majors scored highest on the investigative type, whereas
students of fine arts, education, and management scored highest on the artistic,
social, and enterprising career interest types, respectively. Having investigated the
career interest types of students majoring in science, engineering, and business,
Farh, Leong, and Law (1998) produced findings consistent with those of Yu and
Alvi (1996), showing that students made their educational choices consistent with
72
their career interests.
Although findings from these studies have also supported the contention that
career interest types can be used by students as a reference for making decisions
such as academic tracks and university majors, in reality, the teaching and
learning process influences students in making their educational or career choices,
especially in Eastern cultures such as Malaysia and Hong Kong (Farh, et al., 1998;
Leung & Hou, 2001; Noah, 2001; Talib, Ariff, & Salleh, 2010). It is particularly
noteworthy that in the Hong Kong educational system, students have to make
their career choices before being promoted to high school. As Noah (2001)
indicated, students’ understanding of their own abilities, career interests, and
talents is essential in making an accurate educational or career decision. They also
need certain decision-making skills and knowledge about different careers to
make choices that match their personal characteristics.
However, without a systematic, organized career assessment and counseling
service offered by schools, students (including students in Hong Kong) have
difficulty in making an accurate decision that influences their future career path.
Therefore, it is anticipated that with the assistance of the SDS and an
appropriately designed educational program/instructional environment, students
could acquire a variety of educational and occupational information as well as
suggestions about making their career or educational decisions.
2.3.3.2
Development of students’ career interests
Holland (1996) pointed out that each of the six career interest types fits well
in different environments (e.g., culture and instructional environment) and that
different environments reward different career types. For example, Farh et al.
(1998) found that science major students scored significantly higher on the
investigative career interest type; however, almost half of the students chose the
social type of careers, and over 90% of them wanted to be teachers. In this case,
73
the cultural values might have affected the fit between students’ career interests
and their preferred work environments. Farh et al. (1998) further explained that
students’ career interests might have been moderated by such cultural values as
materialistic oriented (Hsu, 1981) and situationally oriented in the Chinese culture.
Therefore, it was possible that those science students who wanted to pursue social
careers were because of the good future prospects and high salary but not because
of their intrinsic interests.
Without sufficient guidance from teachers, students sometimes fail to make
adaptive changes in their career/educational decisions, and end up choosing
careers that do not match their personal interests and the values of society.
Therefore, the teaching-learning process should provide students with a reflection
of the careers that they actually intend to enter. It would be an advantage to
explore students’ career interests and development by employing the concept of
consistence grounded in the RIASEC theory. The degree of consistency helped to
predict students’ future careers and the stability of careers they engaged in over a
lifetime (Holland, 1996; Holland & Gottfredson, 1975). Reardon and Lenz (1998)
pointed out that if a person had two opposite types of career interest (e.g., realistic
and social), he/she might encounter difficulties in balancing his/her interests in
things and in people. In such a case, if the balance between students’ career
interests is lost, a change of career from time to time might be the result.
Empirical findings have employed this concept in investigating students’
vocational aspirations. For example, McLaughlin and Tiedeman (1974)
investigated the vocational aspirations of senior high-school students at the year
of graduation and 11 years after they graduated. Results demonstrated that the
vocational aspirations of students were able to predict the category of actual
employment, even when the measurement interval was 11 years later. Findings
from Holland and Gottfredson (1975) also found that students’ vocational
aspirations were coherent with their retrospective vocational aspirations.
74
To avoid the frustration of choosing a mismatched career/educational choice,
it is important that students are guided and assisted by teachers through the
construction of a suitable learning environment or adequately planned education
program. Although the RIASEC theory has been adopted frequently in helping
students to make academic choices, in predicting career interests, and in exploring
students’ career aspirations, research has yet to examine whether or not teachers
are able to cultivate students’ development of certain career interests by creating
an instructional environment typified by particular types of teaching styles that
facilitate students’ development of particular types of career interest. Based on the
theory of career interest types and that of intellectual styles, the present research
trained teachers to construct a creativity-generating instructional environment by
employing Type I teaching styles. One of the objectives of the experimental study
is to look for a parallel effect of teachers’ teaching on students’ development of
particular types of career interests.
2.3.4
New Perspectives on Intellectual Styles and Career Interest
Types
Career development is one of the seven development issues concerned with
adolescent growth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). For many decades, since the
development of the RIASEC career interest types and its assessment tool, the SDS,
investigation into students’ career development has been focused on exploring
gender and cultural issues among students’ career interests. However, how this
knowledge of students’ career interests can facilitate students’ career development
in a practical way is still at the statistical stage. Viewing this limitation from
another perspective, as in the field of intellectual styles, research focused on
teaching and learning styles has shown the significance of intellectual styles in
various aspects of students’ learning and development, such as academic
achievement, learning approaches, and cognitive development (Klinger, 2006;
75
Riding & Rayner, 1998; Tsagaris, 2006; Zhang, 2002c, 2004b, 2004c). However,
research that investigates students’ development of particular learning styles and
career interests is lacking.
Recently, there has been a growing interest in researching the role of
intellectual styles in students’ career development. Research on intellectual styles
has
investigated the role of intellectual styles in students’ career development
(Okabayashi & Torrance, 1984; Zhang, 2004b; Zhang & Fan, 2007) by employing
Holland’s (1973, 1985, 1994) RIASEC career interest types to understand more
about teaching and learning issues. Research has focused on the relationships
between intellectual styles and career choices (Gridley, 2006a, 2006b;
Hommerding, 2003; Workman, Kahnweiler, & Bommer, 2003). However, what is
still lacking in the field of career development is an effort to explore how students
can develop particular types of career interests, which is important for their future
career development. Based on the previous evidence from research on the
relationship between intellectual styles and career interests, and also on the
predictability of intellectual styles on career interest types (or vice versa),
intellectual styles might be able to help students develop particular types of career
interests. The present research examines the impact of teaching styles on students’
learning styles and the parallel effects of teaching styles on students’ interest in
different career types.
2.3.4.1
Students’ styles of learning and their career choices
In the underlying principles of the theory of mental self-government and the
RIASEC career interest types, some common features have been observed. First,
by definition, Type I teaching/learning styles and the investigative, artistic, and
enterprising career interest types focus on a person’s creative expression of ideas
or behaviors, whereas Type II teaching/learning styles and the realistic, social, and
conventional career interest types focus on a person’s norm-conforming,
76
rule-oriented ways of thinking and behaving. Second, both theories emphasize the
matter of fit between a person and an environment. According to Sternberg (1988,
1997), a style that may fit well in one context may not fit at all in another. It is
likely that a style may work well at various points within a particular career
interest type. Empirical findings have demonstrated that people used intellectual
styles that were consistent with their career types (Riding & Rayner, 1998; Zhang,
2004b). In turn, as Holland (1973, 1985, 1994) reported, agreement between
personal and environmental characteristics led to positive development of
vocational behavior. It was likely that some occupations were represented by
particular types of styles in a predominant manner (Riding & Rayner, 1998;
Sternberg, 1997). In other words, it is reasonable to believe that intellectual styles
may contribute to the process of finding career interests and making career
choices.
To summarize findings from research on intellectual styles and career
choices, students with Type I intellectual styles in learning tended to show interest
in the investigative and artistic career interest types that encouraged students’
creative abilities and analytical techniques, allowing them to deal with tasks and
to solve problems in an effective and innovative way. For example, Gridley (2006)
found that fine-arts professionals preferred the legislative and liberal styles that
required students to develop new ides, but did not prefer the executive,
conservative, and monarchic styles (Lubart & Sternberg, 1991). French et al.
(2007) found that the divergent thinking style was preferred among students
majoring in occupational therapy because they could deal with different cases in a
flexible way. Several studies have shown that field-independent students preferred
science-related careers such as the natural sciences, engineering, and architecture,
which required students’ competence in analytical and articulated cognitive
structure (Khan & Alvi, 1986; Morgan, 1997).
77
In contrast, students with Type II intellectual styles in learning have
vocational preferences for career types that involve social content and
interpersonal skills. For example, field-dependent students express career interests
that emphasize interaction with people, such as teaching or psychology. Riding
and Rayner (1998) summarized and analyzed findings from previous research on
cognitive styles and occupational types, and suggested that people with an
analytical style appeared more suitable for conventional and realistic jobs, such as
those of a telephone operator, road worker, or driver. People with these career
interests found mechanical and organizational abilities an advantage in performing
their work. Such findings have demonstrated that people employed intellectual
styles consistent with their career interest types, which was important for career
development (Zhang, 2004b, 2007b).
2.3.4.2
The relationship between thinking styles and career interest types
Empirical findings have shown that intellectual styles were related to career
interest types and that students’ learning styles could be modified by deliberate
training. However, when it comes to students’ development of Type I learning
styles, will they also develop the same types of career interest compatible with
their learning styles? The impact of teaching styles on students’ development of
career interests has not been empirically tested with the intention of understanding
the features of the two constructs under investigation and the predictive power of
thinking styles on career interest types; therefore, this research explores the
parallel effects of teachers’ teaching on students’ development of particular career
interest types.
Empirical evidence demonstrated that career interest types are significantly
related to and are predicted by thinking styles; however, findings from the
research were sometimes inconsistent. Following Sternberg’s (1988, 1997) theory
of mental self-government and Holland’s (1973, 1985, & 1994) career interest
78
types, Balkis and Isiker (2005) investigated if students’ thinking styles were
related to their career interests. The results identified significant relationships
between Type I thinking styles (the legislative and judicial styles) and the
investigative and artistic career interest types. Similar results have also been
demonstrated by Zhang (2000, 2001), showing that the artistic career interest type
correlated with the legislative and liberal styles. However, in Zhang and Fan’s
(2007) findings, Type I thinking styles significantly predicted the investigative,
artistic, and enterprising types, but the realistic and social types were not predicted
by the analytical mode of thinking.
It is important to note that the evidence for addressing the relationship
between career interest types and thinking styles has been inconsistent; more
research is warranted to investigate this relationship. It is believed that research on
the relationship between intellectual styles and career interests has the potential to
make positive contributions to educational practice. Therefore, the present
research tested experimentally the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning
and development by focusing on the impact of teaching styles on (1) students’
learning styles and (2) their career interests.
2.4
Theoretical Framework
Based on the literature reviewed in the three themes, a research framework is
proposed for the present research (Figure 2.2). This framework hypothesizes that
teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning styles and career interests could be
affected by various personal (e.g., gender, experience, and interests) and
environmental (e.g., school types, school banding, and instructional environment)
variables. Because teachers bring certain thinking styles to teaching, the
framework predicts that teachers will create a specific instructional environment
that encourages students’ development of particular type of learning styles and
career interests. In the same way, students employ learning styles and develop
79
career interests consistent with the stylistic demands of the instructional
environment. The framework therefore suggests that students’ learning styles and
their career interests are influenced by the instructional environment.
Teachers' Preferred
Students’ Preferred
Learning Styles
Teaching Styles
Socializing Variables
a.
Environmental
Students’
 School types/banding
Learning Styles
 Learning environment
b.
 Culture
Teachers’
Personal
Teaching Styles
 Age and gender
 Teaching experience
Students’
 Professional training
Career Interests
 Extra-curricular activities
Figure 2.2 Research Framework
In this framework, three lines of investigation are put forward. The first
explores the issue of style value, hypothesizing that both teachers and students
prefer Type I intellectual styles to Type II intellectual styles. The second examines
the issue of style malleability, predicting that teachers’ ways of teaching have an
impact on students’ development of learning styles and the development of their
career interests. Meanwhile, the experimental study in this research aims at
developing teachers’ Type I teaching styles so that, as a consequence, they can
construct an instructional environment that encourages Type I learning styles. The
third explores the role of demographic variables in the experimental process. It is
80
hypothesized that students’ learning styles and career interests change dependent
on their demographic characteristics.
2.5
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Based on the research gaps identified in the literature review, three specific
research questions are raised. The first addresses the issue of style value, whereas
the second focuses on the issue of style malleability. The third concerns the
development of students’ career interests. Specifically, the second and the third
research questions aim at determining whether or not students can develop Type I
learning styles as well as particular types of career interests by examining the
impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and on their career interests.
Based on the literature in the field of styles and career development, specific
hypotheses are formulated and justifications are provided for each of the
hypotheses.
Research question 1: Are thinking styles value-laden?
(a) What thinking styles do teachers prefer that their students use in learning?
(b) What thinking styles do students prefer that their teachers use in teaching?
Hypothesis 1: Thinking styles are value-laden, Type I thinking styles are
preferred.
(a) Teachers would prefer students to use Type I learning styles in learning.
(b) Students would prefer teachers to use Type I teaching styles in teaching.
These hypotheses are based on the previous findings in three different ways.
First, Type I intellectual styles were related to human attributes that were
perceived as being more positive (Fan & Ye, 2007; Meneely & Portillo, 2005;
Yamazaki, 2004; Yu, 1997; Zhang, 2002b, 2002c). Second, Type I intellectual
81
styles were generally preferred to Type II styles. Teachers preferred to employ
Type I teaching styles in teaching and students preferred to use Type I learning
styles in learning (Betoret, 2007; Chen, 2001; Zhang, 2006a, 2008; Zhang, et al.,
2008). Third, most of the instructional environments and educational programs
were intended to develop students’ Type I intellectual styles (Broad, et al., 2004;
Choi, et al., 2008; Miller, 2005; Sternberg, 1994).
Research questions 2: Are thinking styles malleable?
(a) Within the control group, do students’ learning styles change from the
pre-test to the post-test after being instructed with Type II styles for one
semester?
(b) Within the experimental group, do students’ learning styles change from the
pre-test to the post-test after being instructed with Type I styles for one
semester?
(c) What are the differences between the control and the experimental groups
before and after the experiment?
i.
On the pre-test, what are the differences in students’ learning styles
between the control and the experimental groups?
ii. On the post-test, what are the differences in students’ learning styles
between the control and the experimental groups?
(d) Do demographic characteristics play a significant role in the above changes?
Hypothesis 2: Thinking styles are malleable.
(a) After the experiment, learning styles of students in the control group would
remain or change toward Type II. That is, they would use or increase their
use of Type II styles in learning.
(b) After the experiment, learning styles of students in the experimental group
would change toward Type I styles. That is, they will increase their use of
82
Type I styles in learning.
(c) Students in the experimental group would score higher on Type I learning
styles than will students in the control group. That is, teachers’ teaching
styles would have an impact on students’ learning styles. More specifically:
i.
On the pre-test, the learning styles of students in the control and the
experimental groups would be similar. They would not have a significant
difference in Type I and Type II learning styles.
ii.
On the post-test, students in the experimental group would score
significantly higher on Type I learning styles than would students in the
control group. Students in the control group would score significantly
higher on Type II learning styles than would students in the experimental
group.
(d) Students’ learning styles would vary as a function of various personal and
environmental variables.
According to theoretical understanding from the field of styles, on the one
hand, as the theory of mental self-government and the three-folded model of
intellectual styles have suggested, intellectual styles are in part socialized and are
modifiable if a demand for change of styles in a specific situation is needed. On
the other hand, findings from research have shown that students made changes in
their learning styles to fit the stylistic demands of the instructional environment
(Choi, et al., 2008; Lee & Tsai, 2004; Liu, 2007; Yeh, 2007).
With the same importance as the socialization effect on intellectual styles,
teachers manage teaching duties consistent with their teaching styles; thus,
teaching styles can be a way to determine how teachers plan an educational
program and create an instructional environment that facilitates students’
development. The impact of educational programs and instructional environments
on students’ learning and development has long been established in the literature.
83
Furthermore, a few studies have shown a positive training effect on students’
intellectual styles, indicating that students developed Type I intellectual styles
after participating in a training program that taught skills and knowledge related to
Type I intellectual styles (Broad, et al., 2004; Fan, 2006; Newble & Clarke, 1986).
In the experimental study of the present research, teachers will be trained in Type
I teaching styles, and it is therefore believed that students will develop Type I
learning styles by learning in a creativity-generating environment and program
that encourages them to use these styles.
Furthermore, this hypothesis is made because one of the major lines of
investigation on thinking styles is to examine the relationship of thinking styles to
various personal and environmental characteristics. Significant differences were
found in teachers’ and students’ thinking styles based on their demographic
characteristics such as age, gender, experience of extra-curricular activities/
professional training, learning/working environment, and culture (Alborzi &
Ostovar, 2007; Bernardo, et al., 2002; Fan & Ye, 2007; Riding & Grimley, 1999;
Zhang & Postiglione, 2001; Zhang & Sachs, 1997).
Research questions 3: What are the differences in students’ career interest types
between the control and the experimental groups?
Hypothesis 3: On the post-test, students in the experimental group would develop a
wider range of career interests than those students in the control group. In particular,
students in the experimental group would be more likely to develop the
investigative, enterprising, and artistic types of career interests, whereas students in
the control group would be more likely to develop the social, conventional, and
realistic types of career interests.
84
According to the definition given by the theory of mental self-government
(Sternberg, 1997) and by the RIASEC theory (Holland, 1994), several similarities
have been found between Type I intellectual styles and the investigative, artistic,
and enterprising career interest types (see the definition of each of the above in
section 2.3.1). That is, underlying both theoretical frameworks is the notion of
creative expressions of ideas and behavior (Type I intellectual styles and the
investigative, artistic, and enterprising career interest types) as well as the idea of
rule-oriented, norm-conforming thinking and behavior (Type II intellectual styles
and the realistic, social, and conventional career interest types). In addition,
empirical findings have demonstrated that styles were related to career interests to
varying degrees. People who employed Type I intellectual styles in dealing with
tasks and solving problems tended to have the investigative, artistic, and
enterprising types of career interest (Chen, 2001; Drysdale, et al., 2001; French, et
al., 2007).
85
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The present research focuses on examining the impact of teaching styles on
students’ learning styles and on their career interests. Sternberg’s theory of mental
self-government and Holland’s theory of career interest types form the theoretical
foundation for the research. In this chapter, the methodology is organized into five
sections: (1) overall design of the research, (2) pilot study: evaluation of the
Inventories, (3) study one: teachers’ and students’ preferred thinking styles in
teaching and learning, (4) study two: an experimental study, and (5) study three:
individual interviews.
3.1
Overall Design of the Research
The major purpose of the present research is to investigate the nature of
intellectual styles: the issue of style value and style malleability. Specifically, this
research has three objectives. The first is to explore the issue of style value, to see
if styles are value-laden, value-differentiated or value-free. On an evidence-based
understanding that students and teachers may prefer Type I thinking styles than
Type II in the education process (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Cano-Garcia & Hughes,
2000; Volet, et al., 1994; Zhang, et al., 2008), an experimental study can be
conducted, aiming at training teachers to use Type I teaching styles and
developing students with Type I learning styles. This objective was achieved
through understanding the types of teaching styles that students value among
teachers and the types of learning styles that teachers prefer students to use in
their learning. The second is to examine the issue of style malleability, to
determine if styles can be deliberately trained and modified. The third is to
investigate the impact of teaching styles on students’ development of Type I
learning styles and on widening the range of their career interests. These two
objectives were achieved by examining the impact of teaching styles on students’
86
learning styles and on their career interests. Previous findings (Fan, 2006; Miller,
2005; Newble, 1986) have demonstrated that students’ learning styles and career
interests could be affected by various socializing factors, and thus, the present
research took students’ demographics (e.g., gender, age, the types of
extra-curricular activities interested in, and educational qualifications of their
parents) into account.
This research employed an experimental design as well as a combination of
quantitative and qualitative procedures. It was composed of one pilot study and
three main studies. The pilot study evaluated the two instruments used in Study
One: the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b)
and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (PTSTI, Zhang, 2003b).
Study One identified teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles and
students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles. Each instrument was used
together with a researcher-designed demographic sheet. The results of Study One
also aimed at determining the need for an experimental study, ensuring that Type I
teaching and learning styles are indeed more preferred than are others among
teachers and students at the secondary school level. Results from Study One
confirmed that Type I teaching styles and learning styles are preferred by both
students and teachers, respectively. Therefore, an experimental study was
designed, targeting to train teachers the knowledge and skills in constructing a
learning environment or plan programs that encourage students’ Type I learning
styles.
Study Two examined the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning
styles and their career interests. A four-hour teacher workshop was designed,
aiming at developing teachers in the experimental group with the knowledge and
skills to construct a learning environment that encourages Type I learning styles.
Students therefore learnt in an environment that encouraged Type I learning styles.
Teachers in the control group did not receive any training. Students might
87
therefore learn in an environment that encouraged mixed types of learning styles
for one semester (the instruction period). Data in the experimental study were
collected through the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2, Sternberg,
Wanger, & Zhang, 2007) and the Self-Directed Search (SDS, Holland, 1994)
before and after the instruction period. Students’ learning styles were measured by
the TSI-R2 in the pre-test (before the instruction period) and the post-test (the end
of the semester). Students’ career interests were measured by the SDS in the
post-test.
Study Three was qualitative in nature. To further understand the issues of
style value and style malleability regarding the nature of thinking styles as well as
to explain the unexpected findings of the experimental study, students were
invited to attend an interview by 4 selection criteria. The criteria (to be detailed in
section 3.5) were designed according to students’ performance in the quantitative
analyses that they did in the second study.
Data were collected throughout two academic years, 2008-2009 and
2009-2010. Figure 3.1 shows the general research plan for all four studies and
specific events of Study Two. Participation in all studies was completely voluntary
and participants were allowed to drop out at any time. To protect the
confidentiality of participants, all personal information are kept confidential and
the data obtained in all studies are only used for this research. In the following
sections, each of the four studies are reported in detail, including participants,
measures, and procedures. Results of the main studies are going to be presented in
Chapter 4.
88
Pilot Study (Fall semester, 08-09)
Study One (Spring semester, 08-09)
Study Two (Fall and spring semester, 09-10)
Recruitment
(May and September 2009)
Pre-test for student
(July and November 2009)
Teacher training
(August and December 2009)
Instruction and class observation
(Fall and spring semester, 09-10)
Post-test for student
(December 2009 and June 2010)
Study Three (Spring semester, 09-10)
Figure 3.1 Research plan for all four studies and specific events of Study
Two.
3.2
Pilot Study: Evaluation of the Inventories
Based on the literature review in Chapter Two, the Preferred Thinking Styles
in Learning Inventory, PTSLI (for teachers) and the Preferred Thinking Styles in
Teaching Inventory, PTSTI (for students) had not been validated among secondary
school teachers and students. To ensure the PTSTI and the PTSLI are reliable and
89
valid for assessing teachers’ preferences for learning styles that students use and
students’ preferences for teaching styles that teachers use, respectively, a pilot
study was designed to evaluate the two inventories. The following sections
present and discuss the details of the pilot study, including participants,
instruments, and procedures. Results of the pilot study are going to be presented
in Chapter 4.
3.2.1
Participants
Participants in this pilot study were two independent samples, one of teachers
and one of students. In the teacher sample, 82 (30 male and 52 female) secondary
school teachers from twelve secondary schools were invited to participate in the
study. They came from one of the three school types: government-subsidy,
direct-subsidy, and private. Of all teachers, the majority were in the second age
group (26-30). About 18% were in the first age group (under 25), 12% in the third
(31-35), 10% in the forth (36-40), and 13% in the fifth (41 or above). They were
university graduates, with average teaching experience of about eight years.
In the student sample, 67 male and 128 female high school (Form 4 or above)
students from seven secondary schools were invited to participate in the study.
Their ages ranged from 15 to 20, with an average of 17. Of all students, 29 were
in Form 4, 105 in Form 5, 61 in Form 6, and 1 in Form 7. They came from one of
the three bandings: Band 1 (high academic achievement), Band 2, and Band 3
(low academic achievement). The three levels of school banding are categorized
by students’ academic standards as calculated based on scaled internal assessment
results. Band 1 schools admit students with the highest academic achievement (the
top 33.33% in the assessment), Band 3 schools admit students mainly from the
bottom 33.33%, whereas students in Band 2 schools are admitted from medium
levels of academic achievement.
90
3.2.2
Measures
All participants were required to complete a questionnaire prepared for the
pilot study. The questionnaire had two sections. The first was a demographic sheet
that aimed at collecting participants’ background information. The second was a
self-report inventory, either the PTSLI (for teacher) or the PTSTI (for student).
Both inventories were developed based on Sternberg’s theory of mental
self-government, describing 13 thinking styles that people prefer to process
information and deal with tasks. Thus, thinking styles anchored in education,
representing teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning styles. In the present
study, teachers responded to the PTSLI that assessed the learning styles they
preferred students to use in the learning process. Students responded to the PTSTI
that assessed the teaching styles they preferred teachers to use in the teaching
process.
3.2.2.1
Demographic sheet for teachers and the PTSLI
Ten demographic questions were developed by the researcher to gather the
background information from each teacher participant. Questions were designed
to analyze the data and to ascertain: gender, age, year of teaching experience,
school level taught, school banding, school type, subject that teachers taught,
academic qualification, and experience of inservice training.
The PTSLI (Zhang, 2006b) is a 65-item self-report inventory, with five items
designed to assess each of the thirteen thinking styles outlined in the theory of
mental self-government. These scales measure teachers’ preferences for thinking
styles that their students use in learning. Teachers rate their preferences on a
7-point scale, with 1 meaning that they absolutely disagree with the statement
describing the way that they prefer their students to deal with their learning tasks
and 7 denoting that they absolute agree with the statement.
91
The PTSLI was designed by Zhang (2006b), measuring university teachers’
preferences for students’ learning styles in Tibet and in Nanjing. In Zhang’s study,
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Nanjing sample ranged from 0.61 (global)
to 0.71 (judicial and conservative). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Tibet
sample ranged from 0.64 (global) to 0.83 (liberal). For both samples, a two-factor
model was obtained, which was consistent with the notion of style types described
in Zhang and Sternberg’s (2005) Threefold Model of Intellectual Styles. The first
factor was dominated by loadings of Type I learning styles (legislative, judicial,
global, and liberal) and the second factor was mainly loaded with Type II learning
styles (executive, local, and conservative). Although satisfactory psychometric
properties of the PTSLI have been reported by Zhang (2007), this inventory has
not been tested among secondary school teachers and in Hong Kong. In addition,
only seven of the thirteen scales have been tested, it is meaningful to carry out a
preliminary study in which other style scales (i.e. internal, external, hierarchical,
and monarchic) can also be examined. Sample items from the PTSLI and their
Chinese translation are presented in Appendix A.
3.2.2.2
Demographic sheet for students and the PTSTI
Nine demographic questions were developed by the researcher to gather the
desired information from each student participant. Questions were designed to
help in data analysis and to ascertain: gender, age, school level, subject
preferences, perception of the learning environment, perception of teaching
quality, experience of extra-curricular activities, and the academic qualifications
of their parents.
The PTSTI (Zhang, 2003b) is based on the same theoretical model,
Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government. The PTSTI is a 78-item (13 scales
of 6 items per scale) self-report questionnaire in which students rate their
preferred teaching styles on a 7-point scale, with 1 meaning that they absolutely
92
disagree with the statement describing their preferences and 7 denoting that they
absolute agree with it.
The PTSTI was designed specifically for Zhang’s study in 2004, exploring
Hong Kong university students’ preferences for teaching styles. Since the
inventory was developed, it has been used in studies involving students from
Hong Kong (Zhang, 2004e, 2006a; Zhang, et al., 2005), Mainland China (Zhang,
2006a), and the United States (Zhang, et al., 2005). Based on the findings from
these studies, satisfactory reliabilities and validities of the PTSTI have been
reported. The alpha coefficients for the Hong Kong sample ranged from .56
(judicial) to .76 (oligarchic) in Zhang’s (2004e) study. Similar results, with the
alpha coefficients ranged from .61 (judicial) to .80 (oligarchic), were obtained in
Zhang’s study in 2006. Although a three-factor model has been reported in 2004
and a two-factor model has been reported in 2006, both factor models were
consistent with and interpretable to the notion of the Type I, Type II, and Type III
styles described in Threefold Model of Intellectual Styles. However, the
inventory’s reliability and validity have not been tested at the level of secondary
schools. Sample items from the PTSTI and their Chinese translation are presented
in Appendix B.
3.2.3
Procedures
Based on the literature review, the two inventories had not been validated
among teachers and students in the secondary school level. For this reason, items
in these inventories were scrutinized and were sent to 20 teachers and 20 students
in a secondary school before the pilot study was commenced. Given the feedback
from the teachers and students on the wording and scale used in the inventories,
two changes were made to ensure the accurate responses from participants. First,
responses were originally scored using a 7-point scale, which was changed to a
6-point scale in the pilot study, with 1 and 6 denoting that students absolutely
93
disagree or absolute agree with the statements, respectively. This change was
made to reflect more accurately students’ preferences on teachers’ styles of
teaching. For consistency, the PTSLI (as well as the TSI-R2 and the SDS used in
Study Two) were also transformed into a 6-point scale format. The second change
related to the length of the inventories. To help teachers and students focus on the
two contrasting styles in the form dimension of styles: monarchic and hierarchical
styles, the oligarchic style and anarchic style were omitted. After the reduction,
the revised version of the PTSLI consists of 55 statements, with 5 statements
assessing each of the eleven learning styles that teachers prefer their students use
in the learning process. For the PTSTI, the revised version consists of 66
statements, with 6 statements assessing each of the eleven teaching styles that
students preferred their teachers use in the teaching process.
Both teacher and student participants in the pilot study were selected on the
basis of convenience for the researcher. Teachers from 7 secondary schools and
high school students from 12 secondary schools have been invited to join the
study. To collect information from teachers, a set of materials (questionnaires,
instruction for answering the questionnaire, and a stamped envelop) were mailed
to the coordinators in each of the invited school. The coordinators then distributed
the PTSLI to their colleagues and had them to complete the questionnaire within
two weeks. The coordinators collected and returned all questionnaires to the
researcher by means of the stamped envelope.
Following the same procedure, the PTSTI had been sent to the coordinators
(with a stamped envelope and instruction) in the invited schools. The
questionnaire was then distributed to and administrated to students following the
procedures and instructions on how to answer. Students have to complete the
questionnaires during the lesson and returned to their teacher immediately. In this
study, participation was completely voluntary and students did not receive
additional credit for any subjects for completing the questionnaire.
94
In this pilot study, the psychometric properties of the PTSTI and the PTSLI
were examined. Additionally, Type I thinking styles were indeed preferred by both
samples: teachers preferred Type I learning styles among students and students
preferred Type I teaching styles among teachers. In Study One, the two
inventories were used again to investigate thoroughly teachers’ and students’
preferred thinking styles in the education process.
Study One: Teachers’ and Students’ Preferred Thinking
3.3
Styles in Teaching and Learning
3.3.1
Aims of the Study
The major purpose of Study One was to investigate the issue of style value,
whether styles are value-laden, value-differentiated, or value-free. This purpose
was achieved through identifying the types of learning styles that teachers valued
among students and the types of teaching styles that students preferred teachers to
use in their teaching. Study One had two objectives. The first was to explore the
types of teaching styles that teachers valued among students and the types of
teaching styles that students preferred teachers to use in teaching. The second was
to determine whether or not it was appropriate to conduct experimental research in
Study Two that was aimed at training teachers to construct a creativity-generating
and intellectually challenging learning environment that encourage students’ Type
I learning styles. In the following sections, information about the research
participants, research procedures, and refinement of the inventories is provided.
3.3.2
Participants
To examine preferred thinking styles in the educational process, two
independent samples (one of teachers and one of students) were recruited to
participate in Study One. Teachers were asked to complete the Preferred Thinking
Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI) to indicate their preferences for students’
95
thinking styles in learning. Students were asked to complete the Preferred
Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (PTSTI) to indicate their preferences for
teachers’ thinking styles in teaching. The PTSLI and PTSTI will be discussed in a
later section.
Participants in Study One were 226 teachers (92 males and 134 females)
from 37 secondary schools in Hong Kong. The teachers were from a variety of
disciplines including Chinese, English, mathematics, sciences, liberal studies,
history, physical education, visual arts, and music. The majority of teachers (34%)
were reported to be in the second age group (26-30 years), 14% were in the first
age group (under 25), 19% in the third (31-35), 13% in the fourth (36-40), and
20% in the fifth age group (41 or above). More than half of the teachers (65%)
had attained a bachelor degree (65%), 31% had attained a master degree, and the
remainder had earned a diploma (3%) or a doctoral degree (1%). Most (41%)
were novice teachers with teaching experience of less than 5 years.
The student sample used for the data analyses was composed of 268 students
from seven secondary schools, of whom 82 were males and 185 were females.
Thirty-one students were at the junior high school level (Forms 4 and 5) and 237
students were at the senior high school level (Forms 6 and 7). The average age
was 17.90 years and ranged from 15 to 20 years. The selection of students from
senior secondary forms as the target population was based on the belief that they
were mature enough to report their preferences regarding thinking styles that their
teachers used in teaching.
3.3.3
Procedures
Data were collected during the fall semester of the 2008-2009 academic year.
Participation was completely voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Teachers
and students were recruited in one of the two ways. The first was to recruit
teachers from academic programs in teacher education (master’s level) at the
96
University of Hong Kong. With permission from the Faculty of Education, the
researcher attended selected classes during the last 10 minutes, verbally described
the purposes and procedures of the study, and invited teachers to participate.
Teachers completed the questionnaires in about 15 minutes and returned them to
the researcher.
The second recruitment method was to invite teachers and students from
randomly selected schools by sending an invitation to the school principals. A
teacher coordinator was invited to be the representative in each school to collect
and return all completed questionnaires and signed consent forms for students
who were under 18 years old. The researcher prepared two packages (one for
teachers and one for students) for all recruited schools that included
consent/assent forms, research questionnaires, and instructions on how to answer
the questionnaires. Following the instructions, teacher coordinators distributed the
questionnaires and the consent forms to the students, who asked their parents to
sign the consent form prior to the students’ completing and returning the
questionnaires to the teacher coordinator the following day. Teachers in each
school completed the questionnaires during a school meeting and returned them to
the coordinator on the same day of the meeting.
3.3.4
Inventories
A separate set of questionnaires and demographic sheets was designed for
teachers and students, respectively. To assess their preferred types of thinking
styles used in the educational process, teachers completed the PTSLI (Zhang,
2006b) and students completed the PTSTI (Zhang, 2003b). The PTSLI and the
PTSTI had been shown in the pilot study to be reliable and valid for measuring
preferred learning styles among teachers and preferred teaching styles among
secondary school students. The details of the demographic sheets, the PTSLI, and
the PTSTI were presented in the pilot study. In this section, the focus is on the
97
refinement of the inventories.
Although satisfactory psychometric properties of the PTSLI and the PTSTI
were reported in the pilot study, the feedback collected by teacher coordinators in
the responding schools indicated that some questions in the demographic sheets
were difficult to understand and to answer. Two questions (Questions 4 and 6) in
the demographic sheet for teachers and two questions (Questions 4 and 8) in the
demographic sheet for students required modification. In the demographic sheet
for teachers, two modifications were made. The scale of Question 4 was changed
from ordinal to nominal. Teachers selected a major grade that they taught in
school instead of counting the number of teaching periods in each grade. Options
were expanded from four disciplines to seven disciplines in Question 6 (What
kind of subjects are you teaching in school?), and examples were added to
illustrate each discipline. Two modifications were also made in the demographic
sheet for students. Question 4 categorized 32 subjects into six disciplines, namely
language and literature, commerce and business, mathematics and science, social
sciences and humanities, information technology, and sports and arts. Question 8
reduced the options for selection from eight to six. Four examples to illustrate the
refinement of the demographic sheets were as follows:
Example 1: (Q4 in the teacher version) Grade of teaching
Wording for the pilot study: 請選擇你所有任教的級別 (給它們排序，課節
最多的級別為“1”)
Wording for this study: 選擇你主要任教的級別
Example 2: (Q6 in the teacher version) Disciplines of teaching
Wording for the pilot study: 語文科目
Wording for this study: 語文及文學類 (如中文、英文、普通話、歷史)
Example 3: (Q4 in the student version) Students’ favorite subjects
Wording for the pilot study: 數學、化學、生物、物理、地理
98
Wording for this study: 數學及科學類 (數學、化學、生物、物理、地理)
Example 4: (Q8 in the student version) Frequency of extra-curricular
activities
Scales used in the pilot study: 每天、每星期一次、每星期兩次、每星期 三
次、每星期四次、每星期五次、每星期六
次、每星期七次以上
Scales used in this study: 每天、每星期一次、每星期三次或以上、每星期
四次
These questions were revised to help teachers and students understand the
questions and to ensure accurate responses from the participants. The refined
demographic sheets were then used with the PTSLI and the PTSTI for this study.
3.3.5
Data Analysis
The data collected in this study were used to investigate the issue of style
value. Thus, to answer the first research question (Are thinking styles value-laden,
value-differentiated or value-free?) and to identify the preferred thinking styles in
the education process, data analyses were conducted in two stages: (a) data
exploration and (b) psychometric properties of the inventories.
The data exploration aimed to produce summary statistics and graphical
displays, which were used to identify outliers and to screen out unusual values,
extreme values, and missing values. To ensure that the psychometric properties of
the instruments were reliable and valid for the research purposes, the present
study examined the internal consistency and the factor structure of both the PTSLI
and the PTSTI. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each
investigated variable to estimate the internal consistency. Principle Axis factor
analyses were conducted to explore the clusters of variables and to test the factor
model. Mean scores for each of the style scales in both inventories were computed
99
to identify teachers’ and students’ preferences for each learning style and teaching
style, respectively.
In Study One, two objectives were achieved. First, the findings demonstrated
that teachers preferred students to use Type I learning styles and students preferred
teachers to use Type I teaching styles in the educational process. Second, the
results of Study One showed that it was appropriate to conduct experimental
research in Study Two that was aimed at training teachers to construct a learning
environment that would develop students’ Type I learning styles. The results of
Study One are going to be presented in Chapter 4 and the details of the
experimental study will be described in the following section.
3.4
Study Two: An Experimental Study
3.4.1
Aims of the Study
Study Two was a longitudinal experimental study that was designed based on
two sources of findings. First, results of previous research on the issue of style
malleability showed that styles could be socialized and modified. Second, the
results from the pilot study and Study One demonstrated that Type I thinking
styles were preferred to Type II styles. Therefore, Study Two was designed to train
teachers to plan educational programs and to create learning environments that
would encourage Type I learning styles among students. This study was designed
to answer the second research question, “Are thinking styles malleable?” which
was answered by examining the impact of teaching styles (i.e., teachers’ thinking
styles in teaching) on students’ learning styles (i.e., students’ thinking styles in
learning) and on their career interests. In the following sections, the research
methods are described in detail, including participants, design and procedure, and
measures.
100
3.4.2
Participants
There were four groups of participants in this longitudinal study that
included teachers and students. The participants were divided into control groups
and experimental groups. In the selection of the teacher and student samples, two
criteria were considered. First, the subject of teaching was Liberal Studies (LS, or
Integrated Humanities, IH), which was part of the HKDSE (Hong Kong Diploma
of Secondary Education) syllabus. Second, students were in Form 4 (equivalent to
Grade 10) and their LS teachers were participants in this study (either in the
control group or the experimental group). Participants from each group are
described separately.
3.4.2.1
Teachers
Six LS teachers (4 males and 2 females) participated in the experimental
group. They attended a 4-hour training workshop that aimed to train them to teach
in a variety of ways to encourage students’ Type I learning styles. These 6
participants taught in three kinds of schools: 3 were from a subsidized school, 1
was from a government school, and 3 were from a direct subsidized school. A
direct subsidized school is free to design its own school-based curricula, whereas
the government school and the subsidized school have to follow strict guidelines
from the Education Bureau of Hong Kong for both teaching and school
administration. Among these participants, 3 were experienced teachers (more than
10 years of teaching experience) and 3 were novice teachers (teaching experience
of less than 5 years). Seven teachers (all males) participated in the control group.
The researcher believed that their teaching would encourage students to use Type
II learning styles. Of these 7 teachers, 1 was from a government school, 2 were
from a direct subsidized school, and 4 were from a subsidized school. They were
all experienced teachers, with teaching experience of more than 10 years. In the
experimental group, 4 teachers taught in Band 1 schools and 2 taught in a Band 2
101
school. Three of the 7 control group teachers taught in Band 1 schools and 4
taught in Band 2 schools.
3.4.2.2
Students
Data collected from the student sample were used for the analyses to
examine the changes in styles before and after the instruction period. The
experimental group was originally composed of 322 students. Because of a
sudden change in school policies, two schools withdrew from the study nearly at
the end of the research, which reduced sample size by almost one-third. After the
reduction of the number of participants, the experimental group was composed of
219 students (131 male and 84 female) who were selected from Liberal Studies
classes in which their teachers had attended the training workshop. Of these
students, 68% were categorized as Band 1 and 31% were categorized as Band 2.
The control group was composed of 464 students (296 male and 168 female) who
were selected from Liberal Studies classes in which their teachers had not
participated in the training workshop (the control group). Of these students, 56%
were categorized as Band 1 and 44% were categorized as Band 2. Students in both
the experimental group and the control group were in Form 4 at the time of
recruitment.
3.4.3
Measures
To determine the experimental effects, two self-report inventories were
administered to students: the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2;
Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2007) was used to identify students’ thinking styles,
and the Self-Directed Search (SDS, Holland, 1994) was used to assess students’
career interest types. The TSI-R2 was administered in both the pre-test (before
instruction) and the post-test (after instruction). Because of the tight schedule of
the high school curriculum, the SDS was administered only during the post-test.
102
3.4.3.1
Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II
The TSI-R2 is the latest version of Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg
& Wagner, 1992). The original TSI was developed on the basis of Sternberg’s
(1988) theory of mental self-government. The 13 thinking styles illustrated in the
MSG correspond to the 13 scales in the TSI-R2, with each scale being assessed by
5 statements. A total of 65 items are organized on a 7-point scale ranging from 1
to 7, with 1 meaning that the statement does not describe the respondents at all
and 7 indicating that the statement describes them extremely well. In addition to
these features, the TSI-R2 is available in both Chinese and English versions. The
Chinese version of the TSI-R2 is used in the pretest and post-test of this
experiment.
Although the TSI-R2 has been recently developed, the original TSI and its
revised version TSI-R have been widely assessed in many studies in the United
States, Hong Kong, China, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Korea,
Taiwan, South Africa, and Iran, to test for its reliability and validity (Bernardo, et
al., 2002; Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Chen, 2001; Fan, 2006; He, 2006;
Murphy, 2007; Park, Park, & Choe, 2005; Shahla & Ostovar, 2007). Findings
from these studies have proved that the TSI/TSI-R is a reliable and valid measure
for assessing individuals’ thinking styles.
3.4.3.2
The Self-Directed Search
The Self-Directed Search (SDS, Holland, 1994) is used to assess students’
career interests. This instrument measures the 6 Holland career interest types:
realistic (R), investigative (I), artistic (A), social (S), enterprising (E), and
conventional (C). A total of 228 items are organized in four parallel subtests
(activities, competencies, occupational preferences and self-estimates). The
activities subtest assesses respondents’ interests, which are measured by 66 items
in a like-dislike response format. The competencies subtest assesses skills in
103
doing particular tasks by means of 66 items in a yes-no response format. The
occupational preferences subtest assesses respondents’ feelings of competence in
different kinds of occupations by 84 items in a like-dislike format. The
self-estimate subtest requires respondents to rate their own abilities and skills on a
7-point scale, with 1 indicating low and 7 high abilities/skills on each of the
RIASEC scales.
The reliability and the validity of the SDS has been examined in studies
conducted in diverse countries, such as Japan (Tracey, et al., 1997), China (Yu &
Alvi, 1996), Hong Kong (Yang, et al., 2006; Yang, et al., 2005), the Eastern Cape
(Brand, Van-Noorwyk, & Hanekom, 1994), and Spain (Gliddeen-Tracey &
Greenwood, 1997). In general, the SDS is found to be a reliable and valid
instrument for assessing students’ career interest types across different cultures.
3.4.4
Design and Procedure
The design of the experiment was aimed at examining the impact of teaching
styles on students’ learning styles and career interests and was composed of five
procedures: recruitment, pre-test for students, teacher training workshop,
instruction, and post-test for students. Except for the training workshop, teachers
and students in the control group followed the same procedures as the
experimental group. Each procedure is described below.
3.4.4.1
Recruitment
Based on the criteria described in 3.4.2 for selecting the teacher sample, an
invitation package was sent to Liberal Studies teachers in all secondary schools in
Hong Kong, inviting them to participate in the study. The invitation package
included an invitation letter, an introduction to the research, detailed information
about the workshop, and an enrollment form. One week after sending the letter,
the researcher contacted the head teachers of Liberal Studies, confirming that the
104
invitation package had been received and that the materials were understood by
the head teachers. Teachers who were interested in the workshop completed the
enrollment form and returned it by mail, email, or fax before the deadline.
To maximize the number of teachers participating in the experiment, the
recruitment procedures were processed twice, during May 2009 and September
2009, respectively. The first recruitment invited teachers to join the workshop held
in August 2009 and to participate in the experiment that was conducted during the
fall semester of the 2009-2010 academic year. The second recruitment invited
teachers to join the workshop held in November 2009 and to participate in the
experiment that was conducted during the spring semester of the 2009-2010
academic year. Following the recruitment of teachers, invitation letters were also
sent to the school principals to obtain their approval for teacher participation.
Twenty teachers and 10 teachers were recruited in the first and the second rounds
of recruitment, respectively; 6 schools obtained approval from school principals to
join the experimental group. With permission from the school principals, the 7
remaining schools joined the control group.
3.4.4.2
Pre-test for students
To ensure that responses from students were not affected by the experiment,
pre-test data were collected before the teacher training workshop. After
recruitment of the student sample, research packages were sent to the 13 schools
(6 schools in the experimental group and 7 in the control group) to gather pre-test
data from the students. Following the guidelines for administrating the pre-test,
teachers distributed the consent forms and questionnaires to the students. Because
all students were under the age of 18, they were required to obtain parental
consent before they joined the study. Students with signed consent forms
completed the TSI-R2 and a demographic sheet within the assigned lesson.
105
For training purposes, teachers also completed the TSI-R2. Teachers in the
experimental group each received a personal report and one for each of their
students. The pre-test reports served two purposes. First, the reports aimed to
provide teachers with a clear concept of thinking styles and demonstrated the
types of thinking styles that teachers preferred to use in teaching and that students
valued in their learning. Second, the reports helped teachers to become aware of
students’ learning styles and their own teaching styles so that they were able to
prepare activities, plan programs, or construct learning environments that
encouraged students’ Type I learning styles (i.e., creativity generating, norm and
intellectually challenging). To ensure that the reports were beneficial to teachers,
all student reports and teacher reports were explained to teachers individually
during the workshops. Report samples for teachers and students are shown in
Appendix E.
3.4.4.3
Teacher training
Teachers in the experimental group attended a 4-hour training workshop. The
general purpose of the workshop was to equip teachers with the required
knowledge and skills to construct a learning environment that would encourage
Type I learning styles. The training workshop had four objectives. These
objectives were to help teachers (a) acquire an understanding of teaching and
learning styles; (b) understand how to employ Type I teaching styles in managing
their teaching, for instance, in planning activities, selecting materials, and
choosing instructional methods and assessment strategies; (c) become aware of
students’ learning styles so that they are able to identify the change in those styles
and provide appropriate materials to strengthen students’ Type I styles; and (d)
gain an awareness of their own teaching styles so that they can adjust their
teaching in an appropriate way.
106
Preparation. Liberal Studies is a new, core subject in the senior secondary
curriculum in Hong Kong; the process of developing the curriculum, constructing
the learning environment, and designing the assessment framework is still
undergoing discussion and consultation. To pay close attention to the development
of the Liberal Studies curriculum and to understand the concerns and difficulties
expressed by frontline teachers, regular meetings with experienced Liberal Studies
teachers played an important role in the preparation stage. Of similar importance
was ongoing discussion with experts in the field of thinking styles to explain how
to integrate the concept of thinking styles into the educational process and to
apply these styles to classroom practice.
After numerous meetings and discussions, and with continuous modification
of the materials, a program for the workshop, a booklet, and other supplementary
materials (e.g., PowerPoint, activities, and reports) were prepared for the training
workshop. The booklet was designed especially for teachers in the experimental
group and corresponded to the four training purposes. This booklet also served as
guidance for teachers throughout the instruction period. To provide a clear
introduction to the workshop, the program was emailed to all participants 2 weeks
before the workshop was held. The program included basic information about the
workshop (e.g., date, time, venue, a map, etc.) and a schedule. The topics covered
and the main activities involved in the workshop were listed in the schedule. A
reminder (via cell phone and email) was sent to all participants 3 days before the
workshop, ensuring the attendance of the teachers.
The booklet consisted of four chapters: (a) the role and place of thinking
styles in education, (b) an introduction to thinking styles, (c) thinking styles in
teaching and learning, and (d) Type I thinking style in classroom practice. Chapter
1 introduced the concept of thinking styles and described the 13 important
thinking styles and why they are needed. It further presented the major principles
of thinking styles and discussed the role of thinking styles in education. Chapter 2
107
illustrated the characteristics of teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning
styles. Examples were provided to demonstrate the overt teaching and learning
behaviors that might be observed in the classroom. Chapter 3 offered various
suggestions of teaching methods and assessment strategies that could be
implemented in teaching and learning. It further indicated some of the factors that
were likely to affect the development of thinking styles and to resolve teachers’
misconceptions about the styles. Chapter 4 dealt with the issue of employing Type
I teaching styles and learning styles in the classroom. It summarized key features
of a Type I teaching and learning environment that encouraged students’ Type I
learning styles and introduced six elements that were important in constructing a
Type I learning environment for both teaching and assessment. Last, it described
the roles and responsibilities of teachers in the education process of encouraging
students’ Type I learning styles, and the importance of reflecting on and inspecting
their own teaching.
The workshop. The workshop introduced thinking styles in teaching and
learning as a new perspective in understanding the educational process. Teachers
were asked to construct a learning environment that encouraged students’ Type I
learning styles during the instruction period; therefore, the workshop was
essentially a practical one, drawing on examples of classroom experiences, reports
from participants’ teaching styles and their students’ learning styles, and research
findings. Emphasis was placed on the implications of teaching styles for students’
learning and for students’ development of thinking styles that were more adaptive
and effective for learning. Therefore, the main theme of the workshop was not to
address the subject matter of Liberal Studies but rather to introduce different
teaching methods and instructional strategies to teachers that would provide
students with more opportunity to create, critique, evaluate, discuss, decide,
cooperate, and reflect in their learning.
108
Four main topics were covered in the workshop; these topics were introduced
via various activities, group discussions, and reflection sections. It was expected
that teachers would gain a basic knowledge of thinking styles and would acquire
the skills and strategies to apply this knowledge to their teaching. To enable
participants to understand the concepts of thinking styles and the diverse ways
that teachers teach and students learn, the definitions, principles, and
characteristics of thinking styles were introduced first; then the need and
importance of thinking styles in education were explained. In the second section
of the workshop, the characteristics of teaching styles, teaching behaviors,
learning styles, and learning behaviors were introduced. Teachers tried to discover
their own styles of teaching and students’ styles of learning by reflecting on their
past teaching experiences. They also attempted to identify and compare the
patterns of styles and behaviors, for instance, teaching styles and teaching
behaviors, and learning styles and learning behaviors. The pre-test reports for the
participants and their students were also distributed; thus, the reports helped to
increase teachers’ awareness of students’ learning styles and their own teaching
styles.
To gain teachers’ confidence when constructing a learning environment that
facilitated students’ development and learning, Sections 3 and 4 dealt with
implementing thinking styles in classroom teaching. By illustrating real examples
in teaching and by sharing teaching experiences with other participants, Section 3
described various instructional methods and assessment strategies that matched
students with different types of learning styles. Section 4 was practical; after
introducing the characteristics of and the elements to construct a Type I learning
environment, teachers planned activities by implementing Type I styles. They had
to
explain
in
detail
how
the
activities
would
cultivate
students’
creativity-generating and norm-challenging types of learning styles. The
workshops helped to promote participants’ use of Type I teaching styles; thus,
109
teachers were more confident to teach in creativity-generating, challenging,
effective, and adaptive ways.
A sample activity that teachers worked on was a group discussion, a task that
was originally designed for students. Twelve teachers formed groups of four and
were assigned to be one of the four stakeholders (teen model, parent, teacher, and
student) to discuss the impact of teen models on social values. In the first round of
the discussion, four expert groups (the teen-model group, the parent group, the
teacher group, and the student group) were formed specifically by different
stakeholders. Each group discussed the positive or negative impacts of teen
models on social values from the stakeholders’ perspectives. They were reminded
to use creative thinking methods (e.g., brainstorming and mind mapping) to
broaden their views on the issue. Afterward, the four expert groups returned to the
original group (a group consisted of one teen model, one teacher, one parent, and
one student), bringing back the ideas and results from the expert groups. They
then discussed the same issue with different stakeholders. Afterward, each group
presented their results from the discussion. This task had four aims. One was to
provide opportunities for teachers to think and discuss from different perspectives.
The second was for teachers to understand the issue thoroughly from different
perspectives. The third was for teachers to practice skills that were important to
encourage students’ Type I learning styles, for example, critical thinking and data
analysis. The fourth was for teachers to understand the difficulties and challenges
that students might face during the same kind of activity. Depending on the
numbers of participants, different roles can be added to the discussion, for
example, an observer, a reporter, or a recorder. Details for this activity are
presented in detail in Appendix F.
At the end of the workshop, detailed information about the research was
explained. The responsibilities of the teachers were stated first, followed by
explanations of other administrative matters. The main duties of teachers were to
110
employ Type I teaching styles in the classroom for one semester; thus, they had to
construct a learning environment in creativity-generating and intellectually
challenging ways so as to develop students’ Type I learning styles. Teachers also
had to administer the pre-test (before the instruction period) and post-test (after
the instruction period) in order to record the changes in learning styles of their
students.
3.4.4.4
Instruction
Instruction occurred in participating teachers’ own schools for one semester,
for both the control group and the experimental group. Teachers selected at least
one Form 4 class to enroll in the research study. The entire instructional program
was conducted for 6 months, with around five lessons (35-40 minutes per lesson)
per week/cycle. Teachers in the control group did not receive specific directions
for their teaching but were requested to teach in their usual manner. Teachers in
the experimental group were required to construct learning environments that
would encourage students’ Type I learning styles. To facilitate students employing
Type I styles of learning, teachers were requested to include activities, tasks,
assignments, or assessments that were creativity-generating and intellectually
challenging and that provided opportunities for students to set goals, make
decisions and judgments on issues and problems, make and implement plans,
analyze and compare data, and conduct evaluations. Activities such as group
discussions, presentations, debates, role plays, small projects, and peer
assessments were recommended. For any questions about the instruction, teachers
were encouraged to read the booklet or to contact the researcher for further
support.
During the instruction period, the researcher held at least one consultation
meeting and class observation for teachers to provide them with feedback and
guidance. Moreover, to ensure that teachers in the experimental group were
111
employing Type I teaching styles, at least one class observation was arranged. The
focus of the class observation was on the tasks and activities used by the teachers
and whether students were provided with opportunities to use their Type I learning
styles, for instance, their creative mind and critical thinking. To gather more
information on their teaching, teachers provided materials that were covered in the
lesson. To ensure that teachers received enough support from the researcher, a
consultation meeting was arranged after the class observation to discuss and
provide feedback to the teachers. If teachers had any problems and difficulties in
using Type I styles appropriately, additional class observation was arranged. The
following were two examples to illustrate how teachers created a learning
environment that encouraged students to use Type I learning styles. Example 1
was a successful case and example 2 was a problem case.
Example 1, Michael (an alias), one of the teachers in the experimental group,
conducted a 50-minute Liberal Studies lesson to a class of Form 4 students
(equivalent to Grade 10). While he was observed by the researcher, Michael
created a learning environment that encouraged students to use Type I learning
styles. The topic “rule of law” was introduced via four activities: review, role play,
video watching, and conclusion. The lesson started with a review activity; instead
of students being asked about the content materials covered in the previous lesson,
students reviewed the materials by commenting on classmates’ posters that
represented their viewpoints on the topic. Students were free to walk around the
classroom and write comments directly on the posters. By doing so, students
recaptured the basic knowledge of the topics by reviewing the key points written
on the posters. To help students achieve better understanding of the topic, Michael
designed different scenarios and roles for students. Students worked in groups and
took different roles in the scenarios that related to the rule of law. They then
studied and discussed the impact of the scenarios on society. To test for students’
understanding of the topic, Michael involved students in group discussions. Each
112
group was assigned a specific question and was asked to gather information and
analyze the various contexts that had been shown on the video. Throughout the
discussion, students commented and responded to the assigned question to show
their understanding of the topic. Michael finished the lesson by drawing
conclusions based on various key points that students had worked on repeatedly
during different tasks. Students were encouraged to comment on the various
controversial issues on which they had not yet come to a consensus.
This lesson presented the students with various opportunities to learn not
only the lesson content but also other skills; for example, students were provided
with opportunities to make decisions, appreciate others’ contributions, support or
criticize others’ comments, express their points of view in creative ways,
cooperate with classmates, analyze information, and look at issues from
perspectives other than their own. These skills were important to encourage
students to use Type I learning styles in the education process. The observation
report of Michael is presented in detail in Appendix G.
Example 2, Peter (an alias), another teacher in the experimental group,
conducted a 50-minute Liberal Studies lesson to a class of Form 4 students
(equivalent to Grade 10). Different from other teachers in the experimental group,
Peter conducted his lesson in English. He started the lesson by collecting
homework, distributing test papers, providing a series of reminders, and reviewing
the assessment guide. After completing these tasks, he initiated the main topic,
“interpersonal relationships,” by asking students a number of questions. This
session was interactive. Peter drew student numbers randomly, and students had to
answer different questions related to the previous lesson. Students were allowed to
comment on and to add more information to others’ answers. After the review
session, Peter used a PowerPoint presentation to teach a large amount of
foundational materials that explained the main topic, for example, definitions of
interpersonal relationships and the various kinds of relationships. Peter asked a
113
few questions when he presented the slide show; however, because there was not
much time for students to understand the questions and think about the answers,
he answered all of the questions himself. Peter considered these materials a
prerequisite for students to handle the discussion of certain issues. He then asked
students to draw a picture to express their perceptions of interpersonal
relationships. Students shared their pictures with group-mates and discussed their
different perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Afterward, students drew a
discussion topic randomly that was related to a dilemma scenario faced in a
particular kind of interpersonal relationship. At the end of the lesson, students
presented their opinions on the topic, and Peter provided a few comments on what
they had discussed.
The activities were designed appropriately so that students were offered
opportunities to express opinions, make judgments, and handle conflicting values;
however, Peter delivered the activities in a direct way. This traditional way of
teaching might have discouraged students from employing Type I learning styles,
and thus, students did not have opportunities to demonstrate their abilities to think
critically, reflectively, and creatively. To review and discuss the lesson with Peter,
the researcher held a consultation meeting after the class observation and
suggested three main areas of improvement. First, instead of beginning with the
PowerPoint slide show, he could present that material at the end of the lesson to
summarize the key points that students had worked on repeatedly. The
controversial issues mentioned and the questions raised in the slide show could
also be used to test students’ conceptual understanding of the topic. If they learned
all the foundational materials at the beginning of the lesson, students might not be
motivated to think independently and contribute to the discussion. In this regard,
the researcher suggested that students could receive appropriate supervision from
the teacher during the discussion. For example, Peter could join the discussion for
a short time and provide students with brief comments. The researcher suggested
114
that instead of giving students detailed information and clear directions, Peter
could ask questions to facilitate the discussion and provide delayed feedback. In
this way, students might have more freedom to express their own ideas and
critique the issues without being directed by the teacher. In addition, to make sure
students understood how they would be tested in the public examination, Peter
reviewed the assessment guide before he taught a new topic. Depending on the
assessment they perceived and expected, there was concern that students might
choose ways of learning that were related to high achievement. However, Peter
responded that this part of teaching was not negotiable as this was a requirement
for all teachers in every subject.
To help Peter to avoid repeating the same problems and to make sure he
could create a learning environment that encouraged students to use Type I
thinking styles, the researcher arranged another class observation. Using the same
lesson plan, Peter taught another Form 4 class in the experimental group. Peter
started the lesson with the drawing activity, and students then discussed the
various controversial issues involved in interpersonal relationships. Without
telling students exactly what they had to do, Peter asked students different
questions to lead them to think deeply, reflectively, and critically on the discussion
topics. In this arrangement, students were motivated to construct their own
knowledge and to think more thoroughly about the main topic. Consequently,
Peter did not have to worry that the students would be inattentive during the
discussion. Instead of conducting the PowerPoint presentation at the beginning of
the lesson, Peter used the slide show to conclude the lesson and to summarize the
various opinions from the group discussion. Having modified the instructional
strategy, Peter successfully constructed a learning environment in which students
were provided with many opportunities to think creatively and critically.
115
3.4.4.5
Post-test for students
At the end of the instruction period, all students (control and experimental
groups) were required to complete the TSI-R2 that was used to measure their
learning styles. Students were also required to complete the SDS that identified
their career interests. Since the high school curriculum was full, to avoid
disturbing the normal teaching and learning schedules, the SDS was not included
in the pre-test.
Post-test reports for the students were prepared both for the teachers and for
the individual students. The reports contained important information that was
useful to understanding the changes in students’ learning styles and their career
interests. The post-test reports served three purposes. First, the reports helped the
students to gain an understanding of their own styles of learning and their career
interests. Second, teachers were able to identify the changes in students’ learning
styles before and after the Type I teaching styles had been employed in instruction.
Thus, teachers could further modify their teaching to suit the needs of students
with different types of learning styles. Last, these reports assisted the researcher to
investigate the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning and on their career
interests. In addition, the reports also helped in the selection of participants to
attend interviews for Study Three.
The post-test reports were separated into two parts: thinking styles and career
interests. The first part of the reports demonstrated the changes in students’
learning styles from pre-test to post-test using a bar chart. The second part of the
reports showed students’ responses to the six career interest types (realistic,
investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional types of career
interests) in four self-evaluated categories (activities, competencies, occupations,
and self-estimates). To provide students with future occupational possibilities, a
table displayed the mean score on each career interest type of the abovementioned
116
categories. Based on a series of statistical calculations, the reports narrowed
students’ occupational possibilities to the one that represented their favorite career
interest type. In addition, the reports explained the characteristics of each career
interest type and provided numerous vocational alternatives to the students. A
clear exposition was attached to the post-test reports to explain the report in detail.
A sample post-test report is shown in Appendix H and the exposition of the report
is shown in Appendix I.
Based on the teaching schedules of teachers in the experimental group, a
debriefing session was arranged to explain the post-test reports to the students.
The debriefing session was offered to three of the five schools in the experimental
group, and each session lasted for one lesson (40 minutes). The researcher briefly
introduced the concept of thinking styles and career interests to the students,
followed by detailed explanation of the results regarding students’ learning styles
and career interest types.
3.4.5
Data Analysis
The data collected in this experimental study were used to investigate the
issue of style malleability and the development of students’ career interests. Thus,
to answer the second and the third research questions. The second and the third
research questions are “Are thinking styles malleable?” and “What are the
differences in students’ career interest types between the control and experimental
groups?” which concern the differences in students’ learning styles and their
career interests between the control and the experimental groups. Data analysis in
this study was separated into three stages: (a) determination of the control
variables, (b) examination of the differences in students’ learning styles, and (c)
examination of the differences in students’ career interest types. Each part of the
analysis was corresponding to analysis answering to the two research questions.
117
To determine the control variables. The MANOVA analyses were conducted
to examine the effects of demographic variables on students’ learning styles and to
determine if any of these variables need to be control. If significant differences are
identified between those demographic variables and any of the scales in the
TSI-R2 and the SDS, the demographic variables will be controlled before further
statistical analyses are conducted.
Differences in students’ learning styles and career interest types.
Repeated-measures MAOVA analyses were employed to examine the overall
changes in students’ learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test for those in
the control and in the experimental groups. Independent t-test was used to
compare students’ learning styles between the control and the experimental groups
in the pre-test and in the post-test, respectively. Furthermore, paired t-tests were
employed to test for the specific changes in learning styles of students in the
control and the experimental groups, respectively. One-way ANOVA analyses and
independent t-tests were conducted to examine students’ mean differences in each
career interest type between the experimental and control groups.
3.5
Study Three: Individual Interviews
3.5.1
Aims of the Study
Study Three was a qualitative study that was designed to achieve four
objectives. The first was to enhance the understanding of the issue of style value
and style malleability regarding the nature of styles. The second was to understand
how and why students modified or preserved their learning styles during the
education process. The third was to understand the ways in which students
developed a broader range of career interest. Last, the forth was to cross-validate
and interpret the quantitative findings. In the following sections, information
about the interviews is presented, including participants, interview questions, and
procedures.
118
3.5.2
Participants
Sixteen students were selected from the control group (8 students) and
experimental group (8 students) to participate in an individual interview. They
were selected based on their performances in the TSI-R2 and the SDS. To collect
comprehensive information on the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning
styles and career interests, four types of participants were selected from both
groups. First, participants had the greater rate of increase in the Type I styles.
Second, participants had the greater rate of increase in the Type II styles. Third,
participants had the widest range of career interests. Forth, participants had the
narrowest range of career interests.
To select the corresponding types of students, the differences in mean scores
of each style types (Type I and Type II) between the pre-test and the post-test were
calculated. Thus, eight students were selected (4 from the control group and 4
from the experimental group); two had the greatest rate of increase in the Type I
styles and two had the greatest rate increase in the Type II styles were selected in
the control and experimental group. In addition, the summation scores on the SDS
over the six career interest types were calculated, and thus, another eight students
were selected (4 from the control group and 4 from the experimental group). Two
had the highest and two had the lowest absolute value summation scores of the six
career interest types.
3.5.3
Interview Questions
To understand how and why students modified or preserved the Type I or
Type II learning styles in the learning process, 4 interview questions were
designed. Students were encouraged to answer all questions and had to give
examples and share experiences to elaborate their answers. The first question
concerned how the Liberal Studies teachers taught. The second question dealt with
how students learnt in the Liberal Studies lesson. In addition, three specific
119
questions (Question 3, 4, and 5) were designed to understand the ways in which
students developed a wider range of career interests.
Question 1: How did your Liberal Studies teacher teach?
a.
Select words from the list that are representative of their teaching.
Explain and give examples.
Word list: Group discussion, debate, listening, stimulate students to
express, direct teaching, allow students to solve problems, self-directed,
rooms for being creative, follow instructions, repeat a practice, stimulate
students to share, peers evaluation and assessment, stimulate students to
think, compose checklists or write outlines, use creative thinking methods,
synthesize and integrate data and information, opportunities to express
opinions and share ideas, allow voices from students, compare and analyze
data and information, use diverse teaching methods.
b.
What kinds of learning activities you have experienced in the lessons?
Explain and give examples.
c.
Are these activities providing you with enough chances to create,
criticize, evaluate, and organize information? What you would do if you
were the teacher and what you would suggest the teachers did?
Question 2: How did you learn?
a.
Select words from the list that are representative of your learning styles
at this moment. Explain and give examples.
Word list: Innovative, independence, being global, observing discipline
and obeying the rules, like compare and contrast, systematic, critical,
like to do things in a planned way, subjection to rules, like to set
multiple goals, like to do things in a well-orderly way, extrovert
character, concentrate and attentive, like to view the situation as a whole,
autonomy, talk and do straight, like group discussion, full of curiosity,
120
like to synthesize and organize, being unrestrained and vigorous, like to
stick to established practice, like to practice repeatedly, like to think
over, like to view things on details, traditional and conservative, like to
pursue efficiency, introvert character, like to ignore details, like to
ruminated a problem, learn independently
b.
Select words from the list (same as above) that are representative of
your learning styles at the beginning of the academic year. Example and
give examples.
c.
Why did you learn differently at this moment and at the beginning of the
semester?
d.
Are you satisfied with your changes?
Question 3: Is your teacher’s teaching broadened your career interests?
Question 4: How and in what way did the teachers broadened you career
interests?
Question 5: What are some major factors do you think that have broadened
your career interests?
3.5.4
Procedures
Data collected from the student sample in Study Two were used to select
students to participate in Study Three. Based on the criteria described in 3.5.2,
four types of students (16 in total) were selected. After the selection of
interviewees, a name list was sent to the Liberal Studies teachers of the
corresponding students, inviting them to attend an individual interview. To ensure
that responses from students were accurate and reflective to the experiment, all
interviews were arranged in the same academic year (June and July, 2010) of
121
when Study two was conducted.
The interview was set in a private room in the interviewee’s school. Students
in neither group had an understanding of learning styles; therefore, the concept of
styles and their post-test reports were briefly explained to all interviewees before
the interview was processed. The interview was around 30 minutes; students were
encouraged to answer all questions designed for the interview. With the
permission from interviewees, the interview was audio-taped and transcribed for
analysis.
3.5.5
Data Analysis
Interview data from the control and the experimental groups were analyzed
separately. The data collected in these groups were categorized and
content-analyzed. For Questions 1 and 2, the scripts were categorized and counted
in terms of the word lists provided in the questions. The descriptive explanations
and examples given by the students were then summarized and presented in
Chapter 5 to illustrate if there was any change in learning styles among students in
both the control and the experimental groups. For Questions 3 to 5, the viewpoints
of the students were summarized and presented in Chapters 5 and 6 to discuss the
impact of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ development of career interests.
122
CHAPTER 4
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
Chapter 4 presents quantitative findings of the pilot study, Study One, and
Study Two in three sections. Section one describes the psychometric properties of
the two inventories used in the pilot study and Study One, the Preferred Thinking
Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI) and the Preferred Thinking Styles in
Teaching Inventory (PTSTI). Section two reports findings obtained in Study One,
including the psychometric properties and descriptive statistics of the PTSLI and
the PTSTI as well as the zero-order correlations between styles and demographic
characteristics. Section three describes the psychometric properties of the
Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised 2 (TSI-R2) that was used in Study Two.
The experimental effects on students’ learning styles were examined through
various statistical analyses. MANOVA analyses were carried out to test possible
significant differences in the TSI-R2 scales as a function of students’ demographic
characteristics. Repeated-measures MANOVA analyses were processed to
examine the changes in learning styles in both the control and the experimental
groups. ANOVA analyses were conducted to compare the differences in students’
learning styles between the control and the experimental groups in the pre-test and
the post-test, respectively. The changes in learning styles of students in the two
groups were further examined by paired t-tests based on their demographic
characteristics.
In addition, this chapter reports findings of statistical analyses that were
conducted to examine the experiments’ parallel effects on students’ career
interests. MANOVA analyses were conducted to examine the effects of
demographic characteristics on students’ career interest types. ANOVA analyses
and independent t-tests were carried out to examine the differences in students’
career interest types between the control and experimental groups.
123
4.1
Pilot Study
The objective of this study was to evaluate the two inventories to be used in
the pilot study and Study One, the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning
Inventory (PTSLI, Zhang, 2006b) and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching
Inventory (PTSTI, Zhang, 2003b). Data were collected from teacher and student
samples at the secondary school level. Teachers responded to the PTSLI to
indicate the types of learning styles that they prefer their students to use in
learning whereas students responded to the PTSTI to assess the types of teaching
styles that they prefer their teachers to use in teaching. This section consists of
three sub-sections: (a) psychometric properties of the scales, (b) Profiles of
teachers’ preferred learning styles and students’ preferred teaching styles, and (c)
discussion of the pilot study.
4.1.1
Psychometric Properties of the Scales
To ensure that the PTSLI and the PTSTI were reliable and valid instruments
for assessing teachers’ preferred learning styles among students and students’
preferred teaching styles among teachers, respectively, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients were calculated to estimate the internal consistency of the eleven style
scales. The Principal Axis Analyses were used to identify the factor structure of
the PTSLI and that of the PTSTI. The detailed results of the reliabilities and
validities for the two inventories are reported in the following two sub-sections.
4.1.1.1
Factor structure and scale reliabilities for the PTSLI Scales
The internal consistency of the PTSLI (for teachers) was calculated by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The coefficients for the PTSLI scales ranged from
0.38 (the global style) to 0.86 (the hierarchical style). Except the global and
internal style scales, other scales were acceptable statistically for the research
purpose. The alpha coefficient of each scale is listed from the highest to the lowest
124
as follows: the hierarchical (0.86), external (0.81), judicial (0.75), liberal (0.71),
monarchic (0.69), local (0.62), conservative (0.61), legislative (0.59), internal
(0.52), and global (0.38) styles. Table 4.1 shows the results of the factor analysis
and descriptive statistics for the PTSLI scales.
Table 4.1 Factor Structure and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSLI Scales (N=82)
Factor 1
External III
Judicial
I
Hierarchical I
Liberal
I
Legislative I
Monarchic
M
SD
0.91
4.97
0.63
0.84
4.62
0.58
0.80
4.78
0.70
0.71
4.42
0.59
0.57
4.37
0.58
0.70
4.14
0.66
0.66
3.83
0.56
0.59
4.36
0.58
0.57
3.63
0.58
0.49
4.11
0.57
0.39
3.96
0.52
II
Conservative II
Executive
II
Internal III
Local
II
Global I
Factor 2
Variance explained (%)
38.69
10.15
Cumulative (%)
38.69
48.84
Eigenvalue
4.26
1.12
Note: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization. Variables with factor loading of less than | .30| are omitted.
For the factor analysis of the PTSLI, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index
was .83, and the Bartlett's test was significant, χ
2
(55, N = 82) = 379.78, p = 000,
suggesting that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. On the basis of the
statistical criteria of eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and inspection of the scree plot,
two factors were extracted that accounted for 48.84% of variance in the original
eleven style scales. The first factor was loaded by five scales of Type I thinking
styles (the judicial, hierarchical, liberal, legislative, and global styles) and one
Type III thinking style (the external style). The second factor was loaded by all
125
four scales of Type II thinking styles (the executive, monarchic, local, and
conservative styles) and one Type III style (the internal style). Because the
internal and external styles may manifest the characteristics of both Type I and
Type II styles, it was acceptable that the external and internal styles were loaded
on factor 1 and factor 2, respectively. The two-factor model supports the notion of
the Type I and Type II thinking styles, and therefore the PTSLI was valid for
assessing teachers’ preferred learning styles among their students.
4.1.1.2
Factor structure and scale reliabilities for the PTSTI Scales
Following the same statistical procedures as were used with the PTSLI (for
teachers), the internal consistency and validity of the PTSTI were also calculated
by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and Principal Axis Factor Analysis, respectively.
The alpha coefficients for the PTSTI scales ranged from 0.69 (the conservative
style) to 0.88 (the liberal style), indicating that all style scales were acceptable
statistically for research purposes. The alpha coefficients of these scales are listed
from the highest to the lowest as follows: the liberal (0.88), external (0.85), local
(0.84), internal (0.81), hierarchical (0.79), monarchic (0.79), legislative (0.77),
executive (0.75), judicial (0.70), global (0.70), and conservative (0.69) styles.
Table 4.2 shows the results of the factor analysis and descriptive statistics for the
PTSTI scales.
For the factor analysis of the PTSTI, the KMO index was .90, and the
Bartlett's test was significant, χ
2
(55, N = 196) = 1734.27, p = 000, indicating
that data from the student sample were appropriate for the analysis. On the basis
of the statistical criteria of eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and inspection of the
scree plot, two factors were extracted that accounted for 69.73% of variance in the
original eleven style scales. The first factor was loaded by the five scales of Type I
thinking styles (the judicial, hierarchical, liberal, legislative, and global styles),
one Type II style (the local style) and one Type III style (the external style). The
126
second factor was loaded by three scales of the four scales of Type II thinking
styles (the executive, monarchic and conservative styles) and one Type III style
(the internal style). Except that the local style was unexpectedly loaded on factor 1
(i.e. with Type I styles), the two factor loadings were supported by the notion of
three types of thinking styles, Type I, II, and III.
Table 4.2 Factor Structure and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSTI Scales (N=196)
Factor 1
Liberal
I
Local II
External
III
Legislative I
Hierarchical
I
Global I
Judicial
I
M
SD
0.93
4.39
0.83
0.90
4.32
0.77
0.87
4.31
0.79
0.83
4.19
0.72
0.82
4.23
0.72
0.78
4.3
0.76
0.71
4.00
0.69
0.876
3.69
0.82
0.802
3.78
0.76
0.762
3.71
0.76
0.743
3.66
0.86
Monarchic II
Executive
II
Conservative II
Internal
III
Factor 2
Variance explained (%)
52.25
17.474
Cumulative (%)
52.25
69.725
Eigenvalue
5.75
1.922
Note: Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization. Variables with factor loading of less than | .30| are omitted.
4.1.2
Profiles of Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and Students’
Preferred Teaching Styles
Scale means were calculated separately for the PTSLI and the PTSTI. To
clearly distinguish the style type of individual styles, superscripts of I ( I), II (II),
and III (III) are used to represent Type I, Type II, and Type III styles, respectively.
Figure 4.1 demonstrates the scale means of teachers’ preferred learning styles and
students’ preferred teaching styles.
127
Figure 4.1 Line Chart for Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and
Students’ Preferred Teaching Styles (Pilot Study).
The scale means for the PTSLI were calculated to identify teacher
participants’ preferences for students’ learning styles. The scale means were
ranked and presented from the highest to the lowest to show teachers’ preferences
for students’ learning styles: the external
III
(M = 4.97), judicial I (M = 4.62),
hierarchical I (M = 4.78), liberal I (M = 4.49), legislative I (M = 4.37), executive II
(M = 4.36), monarchical II (M = 4.14), local II (M = 4.44), global I (M = 3.96),
conservative II (M = 3.83), and internal III (M = 3.63) styles. In general, the means
of all Type I styles (M = 4.44) were generally higher than those of Type II styles
(M = 4.11), indicating that teachers had stronger preferences for their students to
use Type I learning styles.
The scale means for the PTSTI were calculated to identify student
participants’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles. The scale means were
ranked and presented from the highest to the lowest to show teachers’ preferences
for students’ learning styles: the liberal I (M = 4.39), local II (M = 4.32), external III
128
(M = 4.31), global I (M = 4.30), hierarchical I (M = 4.23), legislative I (M = 4.19),
judicial I (M = 4.00), executive II (M = 3.78), conservative II (M = 3.71), monarchic
II
(M = 3.69), and internal III (M = 3.66) styles. Except that the local style was the
second most preferred teaching style, the means of Type I styles (M = 4.22) were
generally higher than those of Type II styles (M = 3.87), indicating that students
had stronger preferences for their teachers to use Type I teaching styles.
4.1.3
Discussion of the Pilot Study
The pilot study was intended to achieve two objectives. The first was to
ascertain the reliability and validity of the PTSLI and the PTSTI. The second was
to identify the types of learning styles and teaching styles preferred by Hong
Kong secondary school teachers and students, respectively. These objectives were
achieved. First, results revealed that Type I learning styles and teaching styles
were preferred by both teachers and students in the educational process. Second,
results demonstrated that both the PTSLI and the PTSTI were reliable and valid
instruments for assessing teachers’ preferred learning styles and students’
preferred teaching styles, respectively.
Results of this study showed that both teachers and students had similar
preferences for intellectual styles in the teaching and learning process. Teachers
preferred their students to use the external (Type III), judicial (Type I),
hierarchical, liberal, and legislative styles (Type I) in learning. Students preferred
their teachers to use the liberal, local, external, legislative, and hierarchical styles
in teaching. In both samples, the scale means of Type I styles (for both the PTSLI
and the PTSTI) were generally higher than those of Type II styles, demonstrating
that both teachers and students showed stronger preferences for Type I learning
and teaching styles in the educational process, respectively. These results
confirmed the contention that styles are value-laden (Bernardo, et al., 2002; Chen
& Zhang, 2010; Murphy & Janeke, 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2000). Type I
129
learning styles and teaching styles were more preferred than Type II styles among
the teacher and student samples.
Although the local teaching style was categorized as Type II, this style was
the second most favored teaching style among all PTSTI scales in the student
sample. The profile of preferred teaching styles found in this study was consistent
with those profiles obtained in other cultural contexts and school levels. Zhang,
Huang, and Zhang (2005) explored university students’ preferred teaching styles
in Beijing, the United States, and Hong Kong. The results of this study found that
the local style was the second most favored teaching style and was preferred in all
three cultural contexts. Zhang (2008) investigated preferred teaching styles among
a group of secondary-school students in Hong Kong. Results revealed that the
local style was one of the most favored styles of the Hong Kong secondary-school
students. These similar preferences for teaching styles found in the pilot study and
Zhang’s studies confirmed that styles are value-laden across cultures and across
institutional levels. On the one hand, students preferred teaching styles that are
creativity-generating (i.e., Type I) and on the other hand, they also preferred
teaching styles that are detail-oriented (i.e., the local style).
Students desired those styles that could develop their higher order thinking
(e.g., creative thinking and critical thinking); they also preferred a style that
allowed them to work on details and learn concrete materials. These findings
seems to be in line with what required by the current educational reform in Hong
Kong – the new high school curriculum, requiring students to take a global
perspective in conceptualizing information and in thinking critically about some
newly developed subjects, such as Liberal Studies. Meanwhile, students have to
develop the skills and knowledge to work with concrete details (i.e. to use the
local style) in traditional subjects such as Mathematics and Chinese Literature.
In both the PTSLI and the PTSTI, the external thinking style (the third
highest mean score) was loaded on factor 1 that was dominated by Type I thinking
130
styles, demonstrating a preference for being more engaged in group work. The
internal teaching style was loaded on factor 2 that was dominated by Type II
thinking styles (the least popular teaching style in this sample). That is, teachers
disliked an individual way of learning among their students. These results were in
line with current educational reform in Hong Kong that aimed at providing
students with cooperative and interactive learning experiences. According to these
findings, the traditional system of education, learning in a norm-conforming and
rule-oriented way, is not the one preferred by either teachers or students.
As predicted, both teachers and students preferred Type I styles to Type II
thinking styles. From a practical perspective, students prefer their teachers to
construct instructional environments and to design educational programs that
encourage their development of creative ideas and provide them with more
opportunities for interactions. Teachers are therefore encouraged to manage their
teaching activities and construct instructional environments consistent with Type I
teaching styles. Students do not find the traditional ways of teaching meaningful,
with a heavy dose of didactic instruction that emphasizes the teacher presenting
material and the student receiving it.
To sum up, on these findings, the pilot study has proved that both the PTSLI
and the PTSTI are reasonably reliable and valid measures to assess, respectively,
teachers’ preferred learning styles among students and students’ preferred teaching
styles among teachers. These findings have also showed that Type I thinking
styles are indeed desired by both teachers and students in the educational process.
In addition, the findings have demonstrated that it is appropriate to conduct an
experimental research aiming at training teachers to construct an instructional
environment and to create an educational program that encourage students’ Type I
learning styles. The PTSLI and the PTSTI were used again in Study One. The
results of Study One are presented in next section.
131
4.2
Study One
The objective of this study was to explore the types of teaching styles that
students preferred among teachers and the types of learning styles that teachers
preferred among students in the educational process. Data were collected from the
Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI) and the Preferred
Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PSTSI) that were tested in the pilot study.
Following the same procedure that was used in the pilot study, the investigator
recruited new teacher and student samples for this study; teachers responded to
the PTSLI and students responded to the PTSTI. The results of Study One were
also used to demonstrate that it was appropriate to conduct an experimental study
(Study Two) aimed at training teachers to construct an instructional environment
that encourages students’ Type I learning styles (i.e. learning styles that are
creativity-generating).
Study One was designed to answer the first research question, “Are thinking
styles value-laden?” and the two sub-questions, (1) “What thinking styles do
teachers prefer that their students use in learning?” (2) “What thinking styles do
students prefer that their teachers use in teaching?” The mean scores of all eleven
style scales in the PTSLI and the PTSTI were calculated and ranked separately to
demonstrate teachers’ preferred learning styles and students’ preferred teaching
styles, respectively. In this section, the psychometric properties of the two
inventories are presented.
4.2.1
Psychometric Properties of the Scales
To ensure that the PTSLI and the PTSTI were reliable and valid instruments
for assessing teachers’ preferred learning styles and students’ preferred teaching
styles at the secondary school level after the revision during the pilot study, the
psychometric properties of the two inventories were re-examined in Study One
using the same validity and reliability analyses. A Principal Axis Analysis with a
132
varimax rotation was performed to examine the factor loadings of the eleven style
scales. The statistical criteria to extract factors were based on inspection of the
scree plot and were determined by eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Cronbach's
alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the internal consistency of all style
scales. Psychometric properties of the PTSLI and the PTSTI will be reported in
4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2, respectively.
4.2.1.1
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSLI Scales
For the factor analysis of the PTSLI, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index
was .817, and the Bartlett’s test was significant, X2 (55, N = 226) = 1128.09, p
= .00, indicating that data from the teacher sample were appropriate for further
analyses. Based on the statistical criteria of eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and
inspection of the scree plot, two factors were extracted that accounted for 58.35%
of variance in the data. Factor 1 was dominated by loadings of the judicial,
hierarchical, global, liberal, and external styles. Factor 2 was dominated by
loadings of the legislative, executive, monarchic, local, conservative, and internal
styles. Comrey (1973) suggested that loadings below .32 were considered poor;
thus, items with factor loadings less than .30 in the PTSLI were deleted. Table 4.3
shows the results of the factor analysis.
Except that the legislative style was loaded on factor 2, the two-factor model
was basically consistent with the pilot study and with Zhang (2008), with mainly
Type I styles being loaded on factor 1, all Type II styles being loaded on factor 2,
and Type III styles being split between the two factors. The external style was
loaded on factor 1 and the internal style was loaded on factor 2. Given that the
PTSLI had not been tested with a sample of secondary school teachers, it was
considered that this two-factor model was acceptable for further analyses.
However, because of the unexpected loading of the legislative style, it would be
appropriate to revalidate the inventory in future studies.
133
Table 4.3 Factor Structure for the PTSLI Scales
Scales
Factor Structure Matrix
Factor 1
I
Legislative
0.59
Judicial I
0.87
Hierarchical
I
0.80
Global I
0.35
I
0.82
Liberal
Executive II
Monarchic
0.76
II
0.63
Local II
0.43
Conservative
II
External III
Internal
Factor 2
0.83
0.89
III
0.74
Variances explained (%)
32.12
26.24
Cumulative (%)
32.12
58.35
Note: (1) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. (2)
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. (3)
Variables with factor loading of less than ∣ .30∣were omitted.
The internal consistency was calculated for the PTSLI scales by Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients. The reliabilities on the individual scales of the PTSLI were
listed from the highest to the lowest: the external (.82), hierarchical (.80), judicial
(.74), liberal and conservative (.73), monarchic (.68), internal (.67), legislative
(.66), local (.63), executive (.62), and global (.55) styles. Nunnally (1978)
suggested that a reliability coefficient of .50 to .60 is generally considered
acceptable. Given that none of the reliability estimates fell below .50, the scale
reliabilities of the PTSLI were considered acceptable. Table 4.4 shows the scale
reliabilities and descriptive statistics for the PTSLI.
The scale reliabilities of the present study were comparable to the two
samples in Zhang (2008), the Nanjing and the Tibet samples. The alpha
coefficients for the two samples ranged from .61 (the global style) to .71 (the
judicial styles) for the Nanjing sample and from .64 (the global style) to .83 (the
134
liberal style) for the Tibet sample. The alpha coefficients obtained in this study
were stronger than those obtained in the pilot study (presented in Table 4.1).
Table 4.4 Scale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSLI Scales
Descriptive Statistics
Scales
External III
Hierarchical
I
Judicial I
Liberal
I
Executive II
Legislative
I
Local II
Monarchic
II
Global I
Conservative
Internal III
4.2.1.2
II
α
M
SD
N
0.82
4.87
0.60
224
0.80
4.81
0.64
224
0.74
4.51
0.61
224
0.73
4.46
0.63
224
0.62
4.31
0.62
224
0.66
4.27
0.60
224
0.63
4.05
0.62
224
0.68
3.99
0.66
224
0.55
3.93
0.53
224
0.73
3.75
0.65
224
0.67
3.69
0.66
224
Factor structure and scale reliabilities of the PTSTI Scales
For the factor analysis of the PTSTI, the KMO index was .84, and the
Bartlett’s test was significant, X2 (55, N = 268) = 1320.60, p = .000, indicating that
data from the student sample were appropriate for further analysis. The eleven
PTSTI scales could be accounted for by two distinct factors. Factors 1 and 2 were
dominated by Type I and Type II styles, respectively, with Type III styles being
split between the two factors. Factor 1 was dominated by loadings of all Type I
styles (the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles), one Type II
style (the local style), and one Type III style (the external style). Except for the
local style, all Type II styles and one Type III style (the internal style) were loaded
on factor 2. These two factors accounted for 59.80% of the variance in the data.
Table 4.5 shows the factor structure for the PTSTI.
135
Table 4.5 Factor Structure for the PTSTI Scales
Scales
Factor Structure Matrix
Factor 1
I
Legislative
0.78
Judicial I
0.43
Hierarchical
I
0.74
Global I
0.79
I
0.88
Liberal
Executive II
Monarchic
0.79
II
0.74
Local II
0.75
Conservative
II
External III
Internal
Factor 2
0.88
0.80
III
0.46
Variances explained (%)
36.61
23.18
Cumulative (%)
36.61
59.80
Note: (1) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. (2)
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. (3)
Variables with factor loading of less than ∣ .30∣were omitted.
The two-factor model was supported by the notion of three types of thinking
styles and was consistent with previous findings (Zhang, 2004e, 2006a, 2008). In
addition, this model was identical to the factor model obtained in the pilot study
(presented in Table 4.2). Thus, the two-factor model is the same as what was
obtained in other cultural contexts and school levels (Zhang, 2004e, 2006a, 2008).
The alpha coefficients were computed for all of the PTSTI scales. The
reliabilities of the individual scales of the PTSTI were listed from the highest to
the lowest: the liberal (.74), hierarchical (.72), conservative (.69), monarchic (.66),
external (66), judicial (.63), executive (.62), internal (.62), legislative (.59), local
(.58), and global (.53) styles. Given that none of the reliability estimates fell
below .50, the scale reliabilities of the PTSTI were considered acceptable. Table
4.6 shows the scale reliabilities and descriptive statistics for the PTSTI.
136
Table 4.6 Scale Reliabilities and Descriptive Statistics for the PTSTI Scales
Descriptive Statistics
Scales
External III
Hierarchical
Judicial
Liberal
I
I
Executive
II
Legislative
Local
I
I
II
Monarchic
Global
II
I
Conservative
Internal
III
II
α
M
SD
N
0.66
4.71
0.58
268
0.72
4.65
0.61
268
0.63
4.65
0.54
268
0.74
4.62
0.59
268
0.62
4.53
0.50
268
0.59
4.47
0.52
268
0.58
4.10
0.64
268
0.66
4.08
0.69
268
0.53
3.76
0.61
268
0.69
3.73
0.70
268
0.62
3.62
0.67
268
The alpha coefficients of internal consistency for the eleven scales were
largely comparable in magnitude to those obtained in three previous studies by
Zhang. Zhang (2006) obtained alpha coefficients ranging from .56 (the judicial
style) to .76 (the oligarchic style). The alpha coefficients ranged from .42 to .81
for a sample of university students in the United States in Zhang’s 2005 study. In
the latest study using the PTSLI, Zhang (2008) obtained alpha coefficients
ranging from .63 (the anarchic styles) to .78 (the internal and external styles). In
general, the reliability data in the present study were slightly higher than those in
Zhang’s three previous studies (2005, 2006a, and 2008).
Both the PTSLI and PTSTI obtained a two-factor model in the factor analysis,
with factors 1 and 2 dominated by the loading of Type I and Type II styles,
respectively. Thus, the two-factor models indicated that the two inventories were
valid instruments. The reliability estimates ranged from .55 (the global style)
to .82 (the external style) for the PTSLI and from .53 (the global style) to .74 (the
liberal style) for the PTSTI. Thus, the alpha coefficients indicated acceptable
reliabilities for all style scales. The results demonstrated that both inventories
137
were valid and reliable instruments for assessing teachers’ preferences for
students’ learning styles and students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles at
the secondary school level.
4.2.2
Scale Means of the PTSLI and the PTSTI
Scale means were calculated separately for the PTSLI and the PTSTI to
identify the types of learning styles that teachers preferred students to use in their
learning and the types of teaching styles that students preferred teachers to use in
their teaching. The scale means were ranked and presented from the highest to the
lowest to show teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles (presented in
Table 4.4) and students’ preferred teaching styles for their teachers (presented in
Table 4.6). The scale means are presented in the following two sub-sections,
profile of teachers’ preferred learning styles and profile of students’ preferred
teaching styles.
4.2.2.1
Profile of teachers’ preferred learning styles
Scale means for the PTSLI were calculated to identify teacher participants’
preferences for students’ learning styles. In general, the means of Type I styles (M
= 4.40) were higher than those of Type II styles (M = 4.03). The scale means of
the individual scales ranged from the lowest, 3.69 (the internal style), to the
highest, 4.87 (the external style).
For individual scales based on contrasting pairs (legislative and judicial
versus executive, hierarchical versus monarchical, global versus local, liberal
versus conservative, and external versus internal), as described in the theory of
mental self-government (Sternberg, 1988, 1997), Type I styles were ranked higher
than Type II styles. To clearly distinguish the style type of individual styles,
superscripts of I (I), II (II), and III (III) were used to represent Type I, Type II, and
Type III styles, respectively. Figure 4.2 demonstrates the scale means of teachers’
138
preferred learning styles and students’ preferred teaching styles.
Figure 4.2 Line Chart for Teachers’ Preferred Learning Styles and Students’
Preferred Teaching Styles (Study One).
Except that students rated themselves higher on the local II style (M = 4.05)
than on the global I style (M = 3.93), the mean of each Type I style was higher
than that of each Type II style. The scale mean of the judicial I style (M = 4.51)
was higher than the executive II style (M = 4.31), the hierarchical I style (M = 4.81)
was higher than the monarchical II style (M = 3.99), and the liberal I style (M =
4.46) was higher than the conservative
II
style (M = 3.75). These results
demonstrated that teachers preferred students to use Type I learning styles and the
external style to Type II styles and the internal style when engaging in learning
activities and tasks.
139
4.2.2.2
Profile of students’ preferred teaching styles
Following the same procedure that was used for the PTSLI, the scale means
of PTSTI were calculated to identify secondary school students’ preferences for
teachers’ teaching styles. The means of Type I styles (M = 4.43) were generally
higher than those of Type II styles (M = 4.11). For individual style scales, the
scale means ranged from the lowest, 3.619 (the internal style), to the highest 4.71,
(the external style).
When comparing the scale means of each contrasting pair, the results were
identical to those in the PTSLI. The scale mean of the local II style (M = 4.10) was
higher than that of the global I style (M = 3.76), the judicial I style (M = 4.65) was
higher than the executive II style (M = 4.53), the liberal I style (M = 4.62) was
higher than the conservative II style (M = 3.73), and the hierarchical I style (M =
4.65) was higher than the monarchical
II
style (M = 4.08). These results
demonstrated that students preferred teachers to use Type I teaching styles and the
external style over Type II styles and the internal style when engaging in teaching
activities and tasks.
Results from the two data sets were consistent with those in the pilot study
and previous findings that investigated teachers’ preferred learning styles (Zhang,
et al., 2008) and students’ preferred teaching styles (Zhang, 2004e, 2006a, 2008;
Zhang, et al., 2005). As predicted, Type I learning styles and teaching styles were
more preferred than Type II styles among the teacher and student samples. These
results demonstrated that both teachers and students preferred Type I intellectual
styles over Type II styles. These results lent strong support to the design of an
experimental study that aimed to examine the impact of using Type I teaching
styles in classroom instruction on the development of students’ Type I learning
styles.
To summarize the results of Study One, a series of statistical procedures were
employed to answer the first research question “Are thinking styles value-laden?”.
140
Satisfactory reliability and validity were obtained for the PTSLI and the PTSTI,
suggesting that these two inventories were reliable and valid instruments for
assessing teachers’ preferred learning styles and students’ preferred teaching styles
at the secondary school level. In addition, the scale means of Type I styles and the
external style were higher than those of Type II styles and the internal style,
indicating that both teachers and students showed stronger preferences for Type I
teaching and learning styles in the educational process. These results supported
the development of an experimental study (Study Two) to extend the investigation
on the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles. Results of Study Two
are presented in next section.
4.3
Study Two
Having been proved that both teachers and students in this study preferred
Type I teaching and learning styles to Type II styles in the educational process, the
results of Study One provided strong justification to support further investigation
into the impact of teachers’ use of Type I teaching styles on the development of
their students’ Type I learning styles and career interests. Thus, a longitudinal
experimental study with a pretest-posttest and control-experimental group design
was developed and conducted.
The experiment consisted of four stages: pre-test, teacher training, instruction
period, and post-test. During the first stage, the pre-test, students in both the
control and the experimental groups responded to the Thinking Style
Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2). During the second stage, teacher training, the
teachers in the experimental group (six teachers) attended a four-hour training
workshop aimed at equipping them with the knowledge and skills to create
instructional environments that would encourage students’ Type I learning styles.
Teachers in the control group (seven teachers) did not attend the training
workshop, and they continued their teaching as usual. Following the training
141
workshop, an instruction period was implemented in each participating teacher’s
school for one semester. During the third stage, instruction period, teachers in the
experimental
group
created
instructional
environments
that
were
creativity-generating and intellectually challenging whereas the teachers in the
control
group
created
instructional
environments
that
were
both
creativity-generating and norm-conforming. During the last stage, the post-test,
students in both the experimental and the control groups responded to the TSI-R2
and the Self-Directed Search (SDS). The methodology of the experimental study
was described in detail in Section 3.4.4.
A series of statistical analyses were conducted to answer the second and the
third research questions, “Are thinking styles malleable?” and “What are the
differences in students’ career interest types between the control and the
experimental groups?” For the second research question, four specific questions
were asked to identify the changes in students’ learning styles before and after the
experiment as well as between the control and the experimental groups: (a) Within
the control group, do students’ learning styles change from the pre-test to the
post-test after being instructed with Type II styles for one semester? (b) Within the
experimental group, do students’ learning styles change from the pre-test to the
post-test after being instructed with Type I styles for one semester? (c) What are
the differences between the control and the experimental groups before and after
the experiment? (d) Do demographic characteristics play a significant role in the
above changes? In the following sub-sections, the results of Study Two are
presented: psychometric properties of the scales, relationships between students’
learning styles and their demographic characteristics, the experimental effects on
students’ learning styles, and the experimental effects on students’ career interests.
142
4.3.1
Psychometric Properties of the TSI-R2 Scales
Validating the Thinking Style Inventory-Revised 2 (TSI-R2) was not one of
the aims in the pilot study; therefore, the psychometric properties of the TSI-R2
scales needed to be tested using the data collected during the experimental study.
Principal Axis Analyses with a varimax rotation were used to examine the factor
loadings of the TSI-R2. The number of factors was extracted by inspection of the
scree plots and by eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the TSI-R2 scales. The
validity and reliability analyses were performed during the pre-test and the
post-test for both the control and the experimental groups. Test-retest reliability
was performed separately for the control and the experimental groups to ensure
that the responses measured in the pre-test and the post-test were reliable and to
indicate if students’ learning styles changed from the pre-test to the post-test. This
sub-section presents results from factor analyses, reliability analyses, and
descriptive statistics for the TSI-R2.
4.3.1.1
Factor structure, scales reliabilities, and test-retest reliabilities for the
TSI-R2 scales (control group)
Principal Axis Analyses with a varimax rotation were performed twice for
the pre-test and the post-test, respectively. For the pre-test, the KMO index
was .792 and the Bartlett’s test was significant, X2 (55, N = 464) = 1751.17, p =
000. For the post-test, the KMO index was .831 and the Bartlett’s test was
significant, X2 (55, N = 455) = 2393.76, p = 000. These results indicated that data
from the pre-test and the post-test were appropriate for analysis.
An identical three-factor model was obtained for the pre-test and the post-test.
This model accounted for 62% and 67% of the variance in the pre-test and the
post-test data, respectively. Factor one was loaded by all three style types, but
dominated by Type I styles (the judicial, hierarchical, and liberal styles), one Type
143
II style (the local style), and one Type III style (the external style). Factor two was
dominated by loadings of Type II styles only, the executive, monarchic, and
conservative styles. Factor three was dominated by loading of two Type I styles
(the legislative and the global styles) and one Type III style (the internal style).
Table 4.7 shows the factor structure, scale reliabilities, and test-retest reliabilities
for the TSI-R2 scales.
Table 4.7 Factor Structure, Scale Reliabilities, and Test-Retest Reliabilities for the TSI-R2 scales
(Control Group)
Scales
Pre-test
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
I
Leg
Hie
I
Int
0.75
0.82
.47**
.41**
0.54
0.66
0.73
0.75
.51**
0.41
0.61
.34**
0.77
0.80
.40**
II
0.79
0.76
0.87
0.84
0.73
0.80
.44**
0.51
0.44
0.66
0.74
.43**
0.62
0.70
.49**
0.61
0.76
.38**
0.72
0.80
.49**
0.69
0.77
.51**
0.57
II
Ext III
Retest
0.76
Exe II
Con
Post
0.64
0.74
LocII
Pre
0.72
0.25
I
Mon
0.66
Test-
0.71
Glo I
Lib
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
0.56
Judl I
α
Post-test
0.76
0.88
0.91
0.80
0.65
III
0.89
0.69
VE (%)
24.11
22.41
15.24
27.97
20.19
18.92
C (%)
24.11
46.52
61.76
27.97
48.16
67.08
Note: **p<.010, ***p<.001. Leg=Legislative, Jud=Judicial, Hie=Hierarchical, Glo=Global,
Lib=Liberal, Exe=Executive, Mon=Monarchic, Loc=Local, Con=Conservative, Ext=External,
Int=Internal, I = Type I, II = Type II, III = Type III. VE = Variances Explained, C=Cumulative
The alpha coefficients of internal consistency for the eleven scales ranged
from .41 (the global style) to .77 (the liberal style) for the pre-test and .61 (the
global style) to .82 (the legislative style) for the post-test. Except for the alpha
estimate of the global style, which was .408 for the pre-test, none of the alpha
coefficients fell below .50, which indicated acceptable reliabilities for the scales.
144
Test-retest reliability was measured between the responses for students at the time
of the pre-test and the post-test with an interval of six months. The test-retest
reliability coefficients for all scales ranged from .34 (the global style) to .51 (the
internal style), indicating that data obtained in the pre-test and the post-test were
reliable. The test-retest reliability was also used to indicate changes in students’
learning styles from pre-test to post-test. Rousson, Gasser, and Seifert (2002)
suggested a test-retest reliability coefficient of .70 as a cut-off point to determine
if the construct changed over time. In this case, the critical value was used to
determined if students’ learning styles changed from the pre-test to the post-test.
For all TSI-R2 scales, none of the test-retest coefficients was higher than .70, thus
indicating that students’ learning styles changed as a result of the experiment.
4.3.1.2
Factor structure, scale reliabilities, and test-retest reliabilities for the
TSI-R2 scales (experimental group)
Following the same procedures that were used with the control group, a
Principal Axis Analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted. For the pre-test,
the KMO index was .64 and the Bartlett’s test was significant, X2 (55, N = 215) =
670.46, p = .000. In post-test, the KMO index was .74 and the Bartlett’s test was
X2 (55, N = 210) = 819.68, p = .000. Results from the KMO and Bartlett’s test
were significant in both the pre-test and the post-test, indicating that the data were
appropriate for analysis.
An identical three-factor model was obtained for the pre-test and the post-test.
This model accounted for 58% and 62% of the variance in the pre-test and the
post-test data, respectively. Factor one was loaded by all three style types, but was
dominated by Type I styles (the judicial, hierarchical, and liberal styles), one Type
II style (the local style), and one Type III style (the external style). Factor two was
dominated by loadings of two Type I styles (the legislative and the global styles)
and one Type III style (the internal style). Factor three was dominated by loadings
145
of Type II styles only, including the executive, monarchic, and conservative styles.
This three-factor model was consistent with the one obtained in the control group.
Table 4.8 shows the factor structure, scale reliabilities, and test-retest reliabilities
for the TSI-R2 scales.
Table 4.8 Factor Structure, Scale Reliabilities, and Test-Retest Reliabilities for the TSI-R2 scales
(Experimental Group)
Scales
Pre-test
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
Leg I
Judl
Hie I
Glo
0.66
0.74
.48**
.49**
0.74
0.72
0.76
0.77
.58**
0.49
0.50
.42**
0.82
0.84
.51**
0.36
0.63
0.52
0.80
0.76
0.71
0.79
.39**
0.56
0.48
0.63
0.73
.42**
0.57
0.67
.54**
0.66
0.65
.52**
0.72
0.70
.60**
0.78
0.74
.48**
0.69
0.75
Con II
Ext
Retest
0.72
II
III
Post
0.73
0.45
II
Pre
0.69
Mon II
Loc
0.76
Test-
0.69
I
Lib I
Exe
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
0.73
I
α
Post-test
0.88
0.55
Int III
0.85
0.69
0.84
0.86
VE (%)
21.21
18.79
17.85
23.81
19.20
19.18
C (%)
21.21
39.99
57.85
23.81
43.01
62.20
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Leg=Legislative, Jud=Judicial, Hie=Hierarchical,
Glo=Global, Lib=Liberal, Exe=Executive, Mon=Monarchic, Loc=Local, Con=Conservative,
Ext=External, Int=Internal, I = Type I, II = Type II, III = Type III. VE = Variances Explained,
C=Cumulative
The alpha coefficients of internal consistency for the eleven scales ranged
from .49 (the global style) to .82 (the liberal style) for the pre-test and .50 (the
global style) to .84 (the liberal style) for the post-test. Except for the alpha
coefficient of the global style in the pre-test and post-test, which fell below .50,
the reliabilities of other scales were acceptable. The test-retest reliability for the
TSI-R2 scales ranged from .39 (the executive style) to .60 (the external style),
146
indicating that data obtained in the pre-test and the post-test were reliable. Among
all scales, none of the test-retest reliabilities was higher than .70. Thus, these
results indicated that students’ learning styles changed from the pre-test to the
post-test.
To summarize, results obtained in the pre-test and the post-test among the
control and the experimental groups of students were consistent, demonstrating
that the TSI-R2 was a valid and reliable inventory to examine students’ learning
styles at the secondary school level. The three-factor model was similar in all
factor analyses. Each factor was dominated by loadings of one style type; thus, the
manner in which the eleven style scales clustered in the model was in line with the
notion of the three style types, Types I, II, and III. The alpha coefficients for the
experimental group were largely comparable in magnitude to those obtained for
the control group. Except for the alpha coefficient of the global style, which fell
below the .50 criterion in all four tests, the alpha coefficients of other scales were
acceptable for further analyses. The test-retest reliability coefficients for all scales
were smaller than the critical value of .700 (Rousson, et al., 2002), suggesting that
the data obtained in the pre-test and the post-test among the control and
experimental groups were reliable. These results also demonstrated that students’
learning styles changed as a result of the experiment. The TSI-R2 was verified as
a reliable and valid instrument for assessing students’ learning styles; further
statistical analyses were processed to examine the experimental effects on
students’ learning styles and career interests.
4.3.2
Experimental Effects on Students’ Learning Styles
Students in both the control and the experimental groups responded to the
TSI-R2 in the pre-test and the post-test (an interval of six months) to see if their
learning styles changed significantly after learning in an environment that
encouraged Type I (the experimental group) or mixed types (the control group) of
147
learning styles. A series of statistical analyses were performed to examine the
changes in students’ learning styles between the pre-test and the post-test as well
as between the control and the experimental groups. The detailed results of the
MANOVA, repeated-measures MANOVA, paired t-tests, and independent t-tests
for the two groups are reported in the following sub-sections. The relationships of
demographic characteristics to students’ learning styles were reported first.
4.3.2.1
MANOVA: analyses on students’ demographic characteristics with the
TSI-R2 scales
The MANOVA tests were carried out for two purposes. The first was to
examine the effects of demographic characteristics on students’ learning styles.
The second was to determine if any demographic characteristics needed to be
controlled in the subsequent data analysis procedures. The data from the control
and the experimental groups in the pre-test and the post-test were analyzed
separately with a one-factor (students’ demographic characteristics) MANOVA
with the eleven learning styles as the dependent variables.
As suggested by the American Psychological Association, the effect sizes of
each significant result should be calculated to indicate the magnitude of the
differences between two conditions (Dancey & Reidy, 2004). The “partial eta
squared (η2)” was employed to indicate a global measure of magnitude of effect
for both between-participants and within-participants designs. A partial η2 of 0.01,
0.06, and 0.14 indicate a small, medium, and large effect size, respectively (Cohen,
1992; Green, Salkind, & Akey, 2000; Stevens, 1996).
The control group. In the pre-test (see Table 4.9a), the results of Wilks’
lambda tests revealed that there were significant multivariate differences in
students’ learning styles based on gender (F = 2.47, p < .01; Wilks’λ = 0.94),
favorite subjects (F = 1.59, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.77), satisfaction with
instructional environment (F = 2.36, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.80), perceived
148
teacher’s ability (F = 1.99, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.83), extra-curricular activities
(F = 1.70, p < .001; Wilks’ λ = 0.72), frequency of participating in
extra-curricular activities (F = 1.49, p < .05; Wilks’ λ = 0.90), father’s
educational qualification (F = 1.81, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.79), and mother’s
educational qualification (F = 1.44, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.83). The effect sizes for
these multivariate differences generally ranged from small to medium. School
banding was found not to be statistically related to learning styles.
Table 4.9a MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the TSI-R2 Scales in the
Pre-test (Control Group)
Measures
Wilks’ λ
F
H. df
Error df
η2
Gender
0.94
2.47**
11.00
450.00
.057
Favorite subjects
0.77
1.59***
77.00
2680.06
.038
Banding
0.96
1.58
11.00
452.00
.037
Satisfaction with IE
0.80
2.36***
44.00
1719.72
.055
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.83
1.99***
44.00
1719.72
.046
Extra-curricular activities
0.72
1.70***
88.00
2927.52
.040
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.90
1.49*
33.00
1308.81
.035
Father’s educational qualification
0.79
1.81***
55.00
1956.93
.045
Mother’s educational qualification
0.83
1.44*
55.00
1970.82
.036
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H. df=Hypothesis df.
In the post-test (see Table 4.9b), multivariate differences in students’ learning
styles were found between gender (F = 2.94, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.93), favorite
subjects (F = 1.45, p < .01; Wilks’λ = 0.78), banding (F = 3.01, p < .001; Wilks’
λ = 0.93), satisfaction with instructional environment (F = 1.76, p < .001; Wilks’
λ = 0.84), perceived teacher’s ability (F = 1.80, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.84), and
frequency of participating in extra-curricular activities (F = 1.75, p < .01; Wilks’
λ = 0.88). The effect sizes for the multivariate differences generally ranged from
small to medium. These analyses also revealed that there was no significant
multivariate difference in students’ learning styles based on extra-curricular
149
activities,
father’s
educational
qualification,
and
mother’s
educational
qualification. Results found in the control group indicated that, as expected,
students’ learning styles differed across demographic factors; however, the
significant results involving extra-curricular activities and father’s and mother’s
educational qualifications obtained in the pre-test became insignificant in the
post-test.
Table 4.9b MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the TSI-R2 Scales in the
Post-test (Control Group)
Wilks’ λ
Measures
F
H. df
Error df
η2
Gender
0.93
2.94***
11.00
441.00
.068
Favorite subjects
0.78
1.45**
77.00
2626.13
.035
Banding
0.93
3.01***
11.00
443.00
.070
Satisfaction with IE
0.84
1.76**
44.00
1685.29
.042
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.84
1.80***
44.00
1685.29
.043
Extra-curricular activities
0.82
1.03
88.00
2868.50
.025
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.88
1.72**
33.00
1282.29
.042
Father’s educational qualification
0.88
.94
55.00
1919.90
.024
Mother’s educational qualification
0.85
1.22
55.00
1933.79
.031
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H. df=Hypothesis df.
The experimental group. The MANOVA analyses of the pre-test data (see
Table 4.10a) showed that there were significant differences in learning styles
based on
gender (F = 3.64, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.84), satisfaction with
instructional environment (F = 1.73, p < .01; Wilks’λ = 0.70), perceived
teacher’s ability (F = 1.56, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.72), and mother’s educational
qualification (F = 1.47, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.72) of students’ learning styles.
However, as noted in Table 4.10b, only two significant differences were found
based on banding (F = 2.10, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.90) and mother’s educational
qualification (F = 1.44, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.72) in the MANOVA analyses on
the post-test data; other demographic characteristics were not found to be
150
statistically related to learning styles. The effect sizes of the multivariate
differences generally ranged from medium to large. Results found in the
experimental group indicated that, as expected and consistent with the control
group, students’ learning styles differed as a function of demographic factors.
Table 4.10a MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the TSI-R2 Scales in
Pre-test (Experimental Group)
Measures
Wilks’ λ
F
H. df
Error df
η2
Gender
0.84
3.64***
11.00
203.00
0.17
Favorite subjects
0.71
1.05
66.00
1064.92
0.06
Banding
0.92
1.60
11.00
203.00
0.09
Satisfaction with IE
0.70
1.73**
44.00
767.11
0.08
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.72
1.56*
44.00
767.11
0.04
Extra-curricular activities
0.70
.83
88.00
1294.72
0.05
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.87
.85
33.00
589.94
0.04
Father’s educational qualification
0.83
.66
55.00
887.68
0.08
Mother’s educational qualification
0.72
1.47*
44.00
728.85
0.09
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H. df=Hypothesis df.
To summarize, based on the MANOVA analyses, two preliminary
conclusions were made. First, students’ learning styles differed based on varying
demographic characteristics. Thus, it was possible that students’ demographic
characteristics played a significant role in their development of certain types of
learning styles. Therefore, how students’ learning styles changed from the pre-test
to the post-test based on their demographic characteristics should be further
analyzed (results will be presented in 4.3.2.5). Second, among all demographic
characteristics, significant differences in learning styles were frequently found
based on gender, satisfaction with instructional environment, perceived teacher’s
ability, and mother’s educational qualification. Therefore, it was advantageous to
control these four demographic characteristics in subsequent stages of analysis.
151
The next sub-section presents the results of repeated-measures MANOVA
analyses, which were used to examine the changes in students’ learning styles
from the pre-test to the post-test for the control group and for the experimental
group, respectively.
Table 4.10b MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the TSI-R2 Scales in the
Post-test (Experimental Group)
Wilks’ λ
Measures
F
H. df
η2
Error df
Gender
0.92
1.61
11.00
198.00
.082
Favorite subjects
0.71
1.04
66.00
1038.17
.055
Banding
0.90
2.10*
11.00
198.00
.057
Satisfaction with IE
0.79
1.07
44.00
747.98
.064
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.77
1.22
44.00
747.98
.052
Extra-curricular activities
0.65
0.97
88.00
1261.93
.049
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.86
0.91
33.00
575.21
.066
Father’s educational qualification
0.71
1.21
55.00
864.54
.079
Mother’s educational qualification
0.72
1.44*
44.00
709.72
.057
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H. df=Hypothesis df.
4.3.2.2
Repeated-measures MANOVA: differences between pre-test and
post-test in the control group and in the experimental group
A 2 (group) X 2 (time) repeated-measures MANOVA was used to examine
the changes in students’ learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test for those
in the control and in the experimental groups, respectively. The group factor
consists of the control and the experimental groups; the time factor consists of the
pre-test and the post-test. As noted in Table 4.11, the Wilks’ Lambda test showed
that the group factor had an effect on students’ learning styles (F = 1.91, p < .05,
η2 = .03). This result indicated that the learning styles of students in the control
group were significantly different from those in the experimental group This result
was further investigated in detail using independent t-tests (will be presented in
152
section 4.3.2.3) to compare the differences in students’ learning styles between the
control and the experimental groups in the pre-test and in the post-test,
respectively.
Table 4.11 Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales based on Groups
Effects
Measures
Between
Group (the control and
Subjects
the experimental group)
Within Subjects
Time (the pre-test and
Wilks’ λ
F
H. df
Error df
η2
0.97
1.91*
11.00
653.00
0.03
0.94
4.03***
11.00
653.00
0.06
0.99
0.69
11.00
653.00
0.01
the post-test)
Group & Time
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. H. df=Hypothesis df.
As hypothesized, the Wilks’ Lambda test showed that the time factor also had
an effect on students’ learning styles (F = 4.03, p < .001, η2 = .06). This result
indicated that students’ learning styles changed significantly from the pre-test to
the post-test. This result was further investigated in detail using paired t-tests (will
be presented in section 4.3.2.4), to further examine the changes in students’
learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test in the control group and in the
experimental group, respectively. Nevertheless, the interaction effect was not
significant (F = .69, p > .05, η2 = .01). This result indicated that the learning styles
of students in the control and the experimental groups changed in similar way
from the pre-test to the post-test. The effect sizes of all these tests ranged from
small to medium.
4.3.2.3
Independent T-tests: differences in students’ learning styles between the
control and the experimental groups in the pre-test and in the post-test
Independent t-tests were carried out to compare students’ learning styles
between the control and the experimental groups in the pre-test and the post-test,
respectively. To show clearly the differences in students’ learning styles between
153
the two groups, the statistics from t tests, effect sizes, and descriptive statistics are
reported. In addition, superscripts of (I), (II), and (III) were used to represent Type I
(the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles), Type II (the
executive, monarchic, local, and conservative styles), and Type III (the internal
and external styles) learning styles for individual style scales; subscripts of (C) and
(E) were used to represent results found in the control and the experimental groups,
respectively.
Table 4.12 Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Groups in the Pre-test
TSI-R2
t
d
Scales
Legislative I
Judicial
I
-3.54***
Hierarchical
Global
I
Liberal
I
I
-1.72
-1.39
-1.60
Executive
II
Monarchic
Local
-1.65
-3.08**
II
-1.44
II
-0.91
Conservative
External
Internal
Type I
Type II
III
III
II
-1.63
-1.88
M (Pre-test)
Control (C)
Experimental (E) Diff. (C-E)
0.14
4.52 L
4.61 H
-0.09
0.29
4.00
L
4.21
H
-0.21
4.14
L
4.24
H
-0.10
3.85
L
3.92
H
-0.07
4.06
L
4.17
H
-0.11
3.93
L
4.02
H
-0.18
3.74
L
3.80
H
-0.09
3.81
L
3.91
H
-0.05
4.41
L
4.53
H
-0.11
4.19
L
4.37
H
-0.12
L
3.76
H
-0.14
0.14
0.11
0.13
0.26
0.12
0.08
0.14
0.16
-1.94
0.16
3.63
-2.91**
0.24
4.12 L
4.23 H
-0.12
0.20
L
H
-0.11
-2.42*
3.97
4.06
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Type I Styles = the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global,
and liberal styles, Type II = the executive, monarchic, local, and conservative styles, H = Higher in
mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
In the pre-test, results of the independent t-test showed that there were
significant differences in students’ learning styles between the control and the
experimental groups. Table 4.12 shows the results of the t-test for the pre-test.
Students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on the judicial I
(MC = 4.00, ME = 4.21, t = -3.54, p > .001) and executive II (MC = 3.93, ME = 4.02,
154
t = -3.08, p > .01) than those in the control group. In the post-test, as noted in
Table 4.13, results revealed that significant difference was found only in the
judicial
I
style (MC = 4.05, ME = 4.25, t = -3.14, p > .01). Students in the
experimental group scored higher on the judicial I style than those in the control
group.
Table 4.13 Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Groups in the Post-test
TSI-R2
M (Pre-test)
Scales
t
I
Legislative
Judicial
I
-3.14**
Hierarchical
Global
I
Liberal
I
I
-1.66
-0.80
-0.09
Executive
II
Monarchic
Local
-0.33
-1.70
II
-0.48
II
-0.90
Conservative
External
Internal
III
III
II
-1.77
-1.04
-1.33
d
Control (C)
0.03
4.507
0.27
4.05
L
4.14
L
3.90
L
4.16
L
4.05
L
3.79
L
3.88
L
4.42
L
4.21
L
3.79
L
L
0.14
0.07
1.17
0.15
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.09
0.11
Type I
-1.68
0.15
4.15
Type II
-1.58
0.14
4.03 L
L
Experimental (E) Diff. (C-E)
4.52 H
-0.02
4.25
H
-0.20
4.24
H
-0.11
3.95
H
-0.04
4.17
H
-0.01
4.08
H
-0.03
3.85
H
-0.06
4.00
H
-0.12
4.48
H
-0.06
4.32
H
-0.11
3.89
H
-0.10
4.23
H
-0.07
4.10 H
-0.07
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Type I Styles = the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global,
and liberal styles, Type II = the executive, monarchic, local, and conservative styles, H = Higher in
mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
By comparing the results obtained in the post-test with those in the pre-test,
two justifications were provided to support the hypothesis that students’ learning
styles changed differently between the control and the experimental groups. First,
the differences in students’ learning styles between the two groups diminished as a
result of the experiment. The significant difference found in the executive style in
the pre-test was insignificant in the post-test. Second, when the mean score of the
four Type II styles was calculated, students in the control group increased their
155
use of Type II styles as predicted after the experiment. Moreover, although Type I
styles did not increase in the experimental group in the post-test, results did show
that students used Type II styles less frequently after learning in an environment
that encouraged students to use creativity-generating types of learning styles. To
compare clearly the changes in learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test,
paired t-tests were conducted separately for the control group and for the
experimental group. Results are presented in the next sub-section.
4.3.2.4
Paired T-tests: changes in learning styles of students in the control group
and in the experimental group
As previously reported in section 4.3.2.3, results from the ANOVA analyses
indicated that students’ learning styles in the control and the experimental groups
differed from the pre-test to the post-test. To gain an in-depth understanding of the
experimental effects, paired t-tests were carried out to test for the changes in
learning style of students in the control and the experimental groups, respectively.
The Cohen’s d was employed in this study to indicate the extent to which the
means in the pre-test differed from those in the post-test. Cohen (1988, 1992)
suggested that a d value of 0.20 was a small effect size, which demonstrated that
the mean difference between the pre-test and the post-test was small. The effect
sizes of 0.500 and 0.800 indicated a medium and a large effect, respectively.
The control group. Table 4.14 shows the results of paired t-tests for the
control group. The results revealed that the liberal I (Mpre = 4.06; Mpost = 4.16; t =
2.41, p > .05), monarchic II (Mpre = 3.74; Mpost = 3.79; t = 2.41, p < .001), and
internal
III
(Mpre = 3.63; Mpost = 3.98; t = 2.25, p > .001) styles increased
significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. These findings suggested that
students developed both Type I (the liberal style) and Type II (the monarchic style)
learning styles after they learned in an environment in which teachers used both
Type I (creativity-generating) and Type II (norm-conforming) teaching styles.
156
However, the effect sizes of all significant results were relatively weak.
Table 4.14 Paired T-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the TSI-R2 scales (Control Group)
TSI-R2
t
d
-0.66
Jud
I
Hie
I
Glo
I
Lib
I
Exe
II
1.33
0.00
1.52
2.406*
0.50
Mon
II
Locl
II
Con
II
Extl
III
Int
III
Type I
Type II
3.039**
1.34
1.85
0.04
SD
N
Post-test
(b)
Diff.
(b - a)
Pretest
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
0.03
4.52 H
4.50 L
-0.02
0.68
0.74
464
459
0.07
4.00
L
4.05
H
0.05
0.70
0.78
464
459
4.14
N
4.14
N
0.00
0.73
0.76
464
459
3.85
L
3.90
H
0.05
0.59
0.69
464
459
4.06
L
4.16
H
0.10
0.81
0.82
464
459
3.93
L
4.05
H
0.12
0.77
0.78
464
459
3.74
L
3.79
H
0.05
0.72
0.82
464
459
3.81
L
3.88
H
0.08
0.77
0.84
464
459
4.41
L
4.42
H
0.01
0.75
0.75
464
459
4.19
L
4.21
H
0.02
0.74
0.78
464
459
L
3.79
H
0.17
0.82
0.89
464
459
Scales
Le I
M
Pre-test
(a)
0.00
0.08
0.12
0.15
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.03
4.14***
0.20
3.63
1.23
0.06
4.12 L
4.15 H
0.03
0.50
0.59
464
459
0.11
L
H
0.07
0.55
0.64
464
459
2.25*
3.92
3.98
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Leg=Legislative, Jud=Judicial, Hie=Hierarchical,
Glo=Global, Lib=Liberal, Exe=Executive, Mon=Monarchic, Loc=Local, Con=Conservative,
Ext=External, Int=Internal, I = Type I, II = Type II, III = Type III. Type I Styles = the legislative,
judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles, Type II = the executive, monarchic, local, and
conservative styles, H = Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
The experimental group. Following the same statistical procedures that were
used in the control group, paired t-tests were also conducted for the experimental
group. As noted in the Table 4.15, the legislative I style decreased significantly
(Mpre = 4.61; Mpost = 4.52; t = -2.10, p < .05) and the internal III style (Mpre = 3.76;
Mpost = 3.89; t = -2.01, p < .05) increased significantly after the experiment. The
effect sizes for the two significant results were relatively small, 0.15 for the
legislative style and 0.15 for the internal style, which indicated only a weak
experimental effect. These findings did not support the prediction that Type I
learning styles were expected to increase after the experiment.
157
Table 4.15 Paired T-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the TSI-R2 scales (Experimental Group)
TSI-R2
t
d
-2.10*
Jud
I
Hie
I
Glo
I
Lib
I
Exe
II
0.67
-0.24
0.72
-0.33
-1.16
Mon
II
Locl
II
Con
II
Extl
III
Int
III
0.77
0.86
1.64
-1.02
2.01*
SD
N
Pre-test
(a)
Post-test
(b)
Diff.
(b - a)
Pretest
Posttest
PreTest
Posttest
0.15
4.61 H
4.52L
0.05
4.21
L
4.24
L
3.92
L
4.17
N
4.02
L
3.80
L
3.91
L
4.53
H
4.37
H
3.76
L
H
Scales
Le I
M
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.15
Type I
-0.37
0.02
4.24
Type II
0.72
0.05
4.03 L
-0.09
0.58
0.63
215
210
4.25
H
0.04
0.73
0.67
215
210
4.24
H
0.00
0.75
0.74
215
210
3.95
H
0.03
0.64
0.59
215
210
4.17
N
0.00
0.81
0.77
215
210
4.08
H
0.06
0.78
0.72
215
210
3.85
H
0.05
0.72
0.67
215
210
4.00
H
0.09
0.78
0.69
215
210
4.48
L
-0.04
0.77
0.73
215
210
4.32
L
-0.06
0.67
0.68
215
210
3.89
H
0.13
0.90
0.79
215
210
4.23
L
-0.01
0.45
0.46
215
210
0.03
0.51
0.50
215
210
4.06 H
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Leg=Legislative, Jud=Judicial, Hie=Hierarchical,
Glo=Global, Lib=Liberal, Exe=Executive, Mon=Monarchic, Loc=Local, Con=Conservative,
Ext=External, Int=Internal, I = Type I, II = Type II, III = Type III. Type I Styles = the legislative,
judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles, Type II = the executive, monarchic, local, and
conservative styles, H = Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
Compared the pre-test and post-test styles’ changes obtained in the control
group with those in the experimental group, a piece of evidence was added to
show that students’ learning styles changed in varying degrees according to the
instructional environment that was dominated by different types of teaching styles.
In the control group, students increased in Type II styles after learning in an
environment that mixed all types of teaching styles. In the experimental group,
although one Type I style (the legislative style) decreased slightly after the
experiment, the extent to which Type II styles increased was smaller than that of
the control group. In other words, the experimental condition inhibited students’
development of Type II learning styles.
158
Since demographic differences were identified by ANOVA in section 4.3.2.1,
it was advisable to test whether or not the findings from the whole demographic
group of students could be replicated within the subgroup. In addition, it was also
advantageous to investigate the influences of demographic differences on the
changes in students’ learning styles. To generate a more complete picture of the
experimental effects on students’ learning styles based on the four demographic
characteristics (i.e. gender, satisfaction with instructional environment, perceived
teachers’ ability, and mother’s educational qualification), repeated-measures
MANOVA and paired t-tests were performed separately for the control and the
experimental groups.
4.3.2.5
Repeated-measures MANOVA analyses and Paired T-tests: changes in
learning styles based on students’ demographic characteristics
(separately for the control and the experimental groups)
As previously reported in section 4.3.2.1, students’ learning styles differed
based on four demographic characteristics: gender, students’ satisfaction with the
instructional environment, perceived teachers’ ability, and the educational
qualifications attained by the students’ mothers. Repeated-measures MANOVAs
were conducted to examine the effect of demographic differences on the changes
in learning styles among students in the control and the experimental groups.
Based on the results of MANOVAs, a series of statistical analyses were performed:
Independent t-tests, one-way ANOVAs, post-hoc tests (Tukey HSD), and paired
t-tests. Independent t-tests were performed to examine gender differences in
students’ learning styles in the pre-test and the post-test, respectively. One-way
ANOVAs were performed to test for differences between some of the groups in
the four aforementioned demographic variables in the pre-test and the post-test.
Post-hoc tests were conducted to identify the specific group differences. Paired
t-tests were performed on each style scale to further examine the effect of each
159
demographic variable on students’ learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test.
Results of each test are reported separately for each demographic characteristic.
Gender. In the control group, the results of the Wilks’ Lambda test showed in
Table 4.16a demonstrated that the main effect of gender was significant (F = 3.06,
p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.93). This result indicated that male and female students
had different learning styles. T-tests (Table 4.16b) were performed to examine
gender differences in students’ learning styles in the pre-test and the post-test,
respectively. The main effect of the time factor was also significant (F = 2.94, p
< .001; Wilks’λ = 0.93). This result indicated that students’ learning styles
changed significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. However, the interaction
effect failed to reach the level of statistical significance (p > .05); thereby
indicating that the instructional environment had similar effects on male and
female students. Paired t-tests (Table 4.16c) were conducted to further investigate
the changes in learning styles of male and female students from the pre-test to the
post-test in the control group, respectively.
Table 4.16a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Control
Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
3.06***
11.00
441.00
0.07
0.93
2.94***
11.00
441.00
0.07
0.97
1.21
11.00
441.00
0.03
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
Gender
0.93
Within Subjects
Time
Time & Gender
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Gender=males and females, Time=the pre-test and the
post-test.
As shown in Table 4.16b, results of the t-tests indicated that male students
scored significantly higher on all Type I styles and the monarchic II style than
female students in the pre-test. Results of the post-test were consistent with those
in the pre-test. In the post-test, male students scored significantly higher on the
judicial I, hierarchical I, global I, liberal I, monarchic II, local II, and internal III styles
160
than female students.
Table 4.16b Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Control Group)
Pre-test
Leg I
Jud
I
Post-test
T-test
Male
Female
t=
M=
M=
2.93**
4.59 H
4.40L
H
L
0.15
2.36*
4.12
Male
Female
M.D.=
t=
M=
M=
M.D.=
0.19
1.75
4.54 H
4.41 L
0.13
H
L
0.18
0.22
3.25**
4.23 H
3.99 L
0.24
H
L
0.21
2.23*
4.06
3.18**
4.22H
4.00 L
I
2.78**
3.91
H
L
0.16
3.16**
3.98
Lib I
2.85**
4.14 H
3.92 L
0.22
3.76***
4.27 H
3.97 L
0.29
H
L
0.12
1.79
4.26
H
L
0.13
4.02 H
3.78 L
0.23
3.08**
4.13 H
3.90 L
0.23
H
L
0.03
2.76**
3.88
H
L
0.22
0.09
1.67
3.93 H
3.80 L
0.14
L
H
0.00
3.60 L
0.31
Hie I
Glo
Exe
II
1.68
Mon II 3.19**
4.24
3.91
T-test
3.75
4.12
II
0.38
3.76
Con II
1.22
3.84 H
3.75 L
0.50
4.42
H
L
0.04
-0.28
4.42
0.91
3.68 H
3.53 L
0.15
3.58**
3.90 H
Loc
Ext
III
Int III
3.73
4.39
3.94
3.76
4.13
3.65
4.42
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. M.D.=Mean Difference, Styles: Leg=legislative,
Jud=judicial, Hie=hierarchical, Glo= global, Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic,
Loc=local, Con=conservative, Ext=external, Int= internal. I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
As noted in Table 4.16c, results of the paired t-tests showed that the learning
styles of male and female students changed differently in the control group. Male
students scored significantly higher on the liberal I (Mpre = 4.14; Mpost = 4.27; t =
2.39, p < .05), monarchic II (Mpre = 4.01; Mpost = 4.14; t = 2.32, p < .05), local II
(Mpre = 3.77; Mpost = 3.90; t = 2.57, p < .05), and internal III (Mpre = 3.68; Mpost =
3.90; t = 4.56, p < .001) styles in the post-test than in the pre-test. However, no
significant change was detected for female students in the control group. These
results suggested that male students in the control group developed
norm-conforming types of learning styles (i.e. the monarchic, local, and internal
styles) as well as the liberal style as a result of the experiment.
161
Table 4.16c Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Control Group)
Gender
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
M
Pre-test (a)
Male
Liberal
I
Monarchic II
Local
II
Internal III
L
Post-test (b)
0.14
2.39*
0.17
4.13
2.32*
0.16
4.01 L
4.14 H
0.13
2.57*
0.17
3.77
L
H
0.13
4.56***
0.26
3.68 L
I
4.27
Diff (b – a)
H
3.90
3.90 H
II
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, = Type I Styles, = Type II Styles,
0.23
III
= Type III Styles, H
= Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
Results of the experimental group were consistent with the control group; the
results of the Wilks’ Lambda test shown in Table 4.17a demonstrated that the main
effect of gender was significant (F = 3.21, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.85). This result
indicated that male and female students had different learning styles. T-tests
(Table 4.17b) were performed to examine gender differences in students’ learning
styles in the pre-test and the post-test, respectively. The effect of time was also
significant (F = 1.95, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.90).This result indicated that
students’ learning styles changed significantly from the pre-test to the post-test.
However, the interaction effect failed to reach statistical significance (p > .05),
thereby indicating that the instructional environment had similar effects on male
and female students. Paired t-tests were conducted to further investigate the
changes in learning styles of male and female students from the pre-test to the
post-test in the experimental group, respectively.
Table 4.17a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Experimental
Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
3.21***
11.00
198.00
0.15
0.90
1.95*
11.00
198.00
0.10
0.93
1.39
11.00
198.00
0.07
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
Gender
0.85
Within Subjects
Time
Time & Gender
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Gender = males and females, Time = the pre-test and the
post-test.
162
In the pre-test, as noted in Table 4.17b, results of the t-test indicated that
male students scored significantly higher on the legislative I, global I, liberal I, and
internal III styles than female students. Female students scored significantly higher
on the executive
II
and external
III
styles than male students. However, in the
post-test, male students only scored significantly higher on the legislative I and
liberal I styles. That is to say, the effects of gender on style change diminished
after the experiment.
Table 4.17b Independent T-test on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender in the Pre-test and the
Post-test (Experimental Group)
Pre-test
Leg I
T-test
Male
Female
t=
M=
M=
M.D.=
4.69 H
4.48L
0.21
2.56**
I
-1.08
4.17
Hie I
-0.46
2.23*
4.00
3.72***
Jud
Glo
I
Lib I
Exe
II
Mon II
Post-test
L
M=
M=
M.D.=
2.23*
4.59 H
4.40 L
0.20
L
H
-0.08
-0.01
4.22
4.22 L
4.27 H
-0.05
-0.53
4.24 L
4.25 H
H
L
0.20
0.17
3.95
H
L
0.02
4.33 H
3.92 L
0.41
2.29*
4.24 H
4.02 L
0.25
L
H
-0.18
-1.05
4.28
L
H
-0.10
0.08
-0.55
4.05 L
4.11 H
-0.06
L
H
-0.06
3.80
4.49
4.30
3.94
-1.98*
4.30
0.69
4.05 H
3.97 L
L
H
-0.16
-0.64
3.83
-0.21
-1.73
3.93 L
4.10 H
-0.17
-0.27
-1.18
4.44
L
H
-0.12
0.29
0.31
3.90 H
Con II
-1.94
3.83 L
4.04 H
L
H
Int III
t=
-0.80
3.73
Ext
Female
-0.11
4.28
-1.62
III
Male
H
II
Loc
T-test
-2.51*
4.42
2.33*
3.88 H
3.90
4.69
3.59 L
4.38
3.89
4.56
3.87 L
0.04
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. M Diff.=Mean Difference, Styles: Leg=legislative,
Jud=judicial, Hie=hierarchical, Glo= global, Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic,
Loc=local, Con=conservative, Ext=external, Int= internal. I=Type I styles, II=Type II styles,
III
=Type III styles.
As noted in Table 4.17c, the changes in learning styles between female and
male students differed in the experimental group. Female students in the
experimental group scored significantly lower on the external III style (Mpre = 4.69;
163
Mpost = 4.56; t = -2.10, p < .05) and higher on the internal III style (Mpre = 3.59;
Mpost = 3.87; t = 3.34, p < .001) in the post-test compared with the pre-test. No
significant change was detected for male students in the experimental group.
These results indicated that female students in the experimental group developed a
preference for learning independently as opposed to work in groups as a result of
the experiment.
Table 4.17c Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Gender (Experimental Group)
Gender
Female
TSI-R2 Scales
External
Internal
III
III
t
-2.10*
3.34***
d
M
Pre-test (a)
Post-test (b)
Diff (b – a)
0.20
4.69 H
4.56 L
-0.13
0.34
L
H
3.59
3.87
0.28
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles, H =
Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score.
Satisfaction with instructional environment. In the control group, the results
of the Wilks’ Lambda test (in Table 4.18a) revealed that the main effect of
students’ satisfaction with learning environment was significant (F = 1.97, p
< .001; Wilks’λ = 0.83). One-way ANOVAs (Table 4.18b) were use to test the
mean differences in students’ learning styles among different levels of satisfaction
with the instructional environment (i.e., extremely dissatisfied, dissatisfied, no
comment, satisfied, and extremely satisfied) in the pre-test and the post-test. The
time factor had a significant effect on students’ learning styles (F = 2.84, p < .001;
Wilks’λ = 0.93). This result meant that students’ learning styles changed
significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. The interaction effect (F = 1.53, p
< .05; Wilks’λ = 0.86) was also significant, thereby indicating that instructional
environment had different effects for students with different levels of satisfaction.
Results of the paired t-tests showed in Table 4.18d demonstrated that students
with different levels of satisfaction changed their learning styles in different ways.
164
Table 4.18a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction
with Instructional Environment (Control Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
1.97***
44.00
1685.29
0.05
0.93
2.84***
11.00
440.00
0.07
0.86
1.53*
44.00
1685.29
0.04
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
IE
0.83
Within Subjects
Time
Time & IE
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, IE = students’ satisfaction with instructional environment,
Time = the pre-test and the post-test.
As noted in Table 4.18b, results of the one-way ANOVAs showed that
students with different levels of satisfaction with the instructional environment
had different learning styles in the pre-test and the post-test. In the pre-test, results
of the post-hoc tests shown in Table 4.18c demonstrated that those students who
had no comment on the instructional environment scored significantly lower on
the legislative I, judicial I, hierarchical I, liberal I, and external III styles than those
students who were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their instructional
environment. In addition, those students who expressed dissatisfaction with their
instructional environment scored significantly lower on the judicial I, executive II,
monarchic II, conservative II, and external
III
styles than those students who
reported satisfaction with their instructional environment, respectively.
In the post-test, results of the post-hoc tests showed in Table 4.18c
demonstrated that those students who did not have any comment on their
instructional environment scored significantly lower on the executive
monarchic II, and external
III
II
,
styles than those students who were satisfied or
extremely satisfied with their instructional environment. In addition, those
students who were dissatisfied with or did not have any comment on their
instructional environment scored significantly lower on the local II style than those
students who were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their instructional
environment, respectively.
165
Table 4.18b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction with
Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Pre-test
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
M=
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
M=
M=
M=
M=
M=
I
8.10***
4.86 4.54
4.31
4.58
4.91
1.92
4.46
4.61
4.36
4.56
4.58
Jud I
5.99***
3.83 3.71
3.86
4.10
4.28
2.13
3.94
3.99
3.97
4.16
3.86
5.73***
4.03 4.02
3.94
4.24
4.42
1.96
3.94
4.10
4.01
4.23
4.16
1.16
3.94 3.90
3.77
3.89
3.92
2.55*
3.77
4.14
3.79
3.93
4.04
3.17*
4.14 4.08
3.89
4.13
4.33
1.59
4.00
4.27
4.04
4.24
4.10
6.09***
3.63 3.81
4.09
4.31
4.30
2.72*
4.14
4.27
4.07
4.32
4.08
3.55**
4.06 3.62
3.81
4.04
3.93
4.21**
3.89
3.86
3.92
4.19
3.84
2.10
3.74 3.45
3.70
3.80
3.85
3.53**
3.91
3.40
3.73
3.90
3.68
4.21**
3.26 3.40
3.77
3.89
3.87
0.50
4.03
3.85
3.81
3.93
3.88
8.31***
4.01 4.16
4.19
4.56
4.62
6.80***
4.08
4.45
4.20
4.50
4.80
1.64
4.06 3.73
3.51
3.67
3.70
1.64
4.09
4.03
3.71
3.83
3.63
Leg
I
Hiel
Glo I
Lib
I
Exe II
Mon
II
Loc II
Con
II
Ext III
Int
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. 1=extremely dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, 3=no comment,
4=satisfied, and 5=extremely satisfied. Styles: Leg=legislative, Jud=judicial, Hie=hierarchical,
Glo=global, Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic, Loc=local, Ext=external, Int=internal,
Con=conservative,. I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
As noted in Table 4.18d, in the control group, results showed that students’
learning styles changed in a predicted way. Generally speaking, students scored
significantly higher on Type II learning styles (i.e. the executive, monarchic, local,
and conservative styles) and the internal style in the post-test than in the pre-test
among the three levels of satisfaction with instructional environment (i.e.,
dissatisfied, no comment, and satisfied). Students scored significantly higher on
the executive II (Mpre = 3.82; Mpost = 4.31; t = 3.16, p < .01) and the conservative II
styles (Mpre = 3.44; Mpost = 3.89; t = 2.40, p < .05) in the post-test than in the
pre-test if they were dissatisfied with the instructional environment. When
students were satisfied with the instructional environment, they scored
significantly higher on all three types of styles after the experiment (Type I, II,
and III): the liberal I (Mpre = 4.13; Mpost = 4.24; t = 2.02, p < .05) , the monarchic II
166
(Mpre = 4.04; Mpost = 4.19; t = 2.95, p < .01), local II (Mpre = 3.80; Mpost = 3.90; t =
2.14, p < .05), and the internal III (Mpre = 3.67; Mpost = 3.83; t = 2.96, p < .01)
styles. These results suggested that students had a higher preference for using
more diverse types of learning styles, including styles of all three types (i.e. the
liberal I, monarchic II, local II, and the internal III), if they were more satisfied with
their instructional environment.
Table 4.18c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction
with Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Tests
Pre-test
Styles
Levels of Satisfaction (a) Levels of Satisfaction (b) M.D. (a-b)
I
Legislative
I
Judicial
Hierarchical
Liberal
I
I
Executive
I
Monarchic
II
Conservative
External
III
Post-test Executive II
Monarchic
Local II
External
II
II
II
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.27
No comment
Satisfied
-0.60
Satisfy
Extremely satisfied
-0.34
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.39
Dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-0.57
No comment
Satisfied
-0.24
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.41
No comment
Satisfied
-0.30
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.48
No comment
Satisfied
-0.24
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.44
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.51
Dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-0.50
No comment
Satisfied
-0.23
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.42
No comment
Satisfied
-0.23
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.49
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.41
No comment
Satisfied
-0.37
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.43
No comment
Satisfied
-0.25
No comment
Satisfied
-0.27
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
-0.51
No comment
Satisfied
-0.30
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.60
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. M.D.= Mean Difference, Styles: I=Type I,
II
=Type II, III=Type III.
167
Table 4.18d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Satisfaction with Instructional
Environment (Control Group)
Satisfaction
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
M
Pre-test (a)
Post-test (b)
Diff (b – a)
0.54
3.82 L
4.31 H
0.50
2.40*
0.47
3.44
L
H
0.45
2.30*
0.21
3.89 L
4.04 H
0.16
3.08**
0.24
3.51
L
H
0.19
2.02*
0.14
4.13 L
4.24 H
0.11
2.95**
0.20
4.04
L
H
0.15
2.14*
0.15
3.80 L
3.90 H
0.11
0.20
L
H
0.17
with IE
Executive II
Dissatisfied
Conservative
No comment Liberal I
Internal
III
Liberal I
Satisfied
Monarchic
Local II
Internal
III
II
3.16**
II
2.96**
3.67
3.89
3.71
4.19
3.83
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles,
H
= Higher in
L
mean score, = Lower in mean score.
In the experimental group, the results of the Wilks’ Lambda test (in Table
4.19a) revealed that the main effect of students’ satisfaction with the instructional
environment (F = 1.56, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.72) was significant. One-way
ANOVAs (Table 4.19b) were performed to test the mean differences in students’
learning styles among different levels of satisfaction (i.e., extremely satisfied,
dissatisfied, no comment, satisfied, and extremely satisfied) in the pre-test and the
post-test. However, the main effect of time and interaction effect were not found,
demonstrating that the changes in learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test
were independent of the levels of satisfaction with the instructional environment.
Regarding this result, paired t-tests were performed to further examine the
changes in learning styles of students with different levels of satisfaction with
their instructional environment.
In the pre-test, results of the one-way ANOVAs (Table 4.19b) and post-hoc
tests (Table 4.19c) showed that significant mean differences were only obtained in
the external
III
style. The mean differences in students’ learning styles among
students with different levels of satisfaction were significant at the .05 level. If
168
students had higher ratings of satisfaction with the instructional environment, they
had higher mean scores on the external III style. In the post-test, results of the
post-hoc tests showed that those students who were extremely dissatisfied with
their instructional environment scored significantly lower on the external III style
than those students who were satisfied or extremely satisfied with their
instructional environment.
Table 4.19a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction
with Instructional Environment (Experimental Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
1.56*
44.00
747.98
0.16
0.97
0.50
11.00
195.00
0.03
0.83
0.86
44.00
747.98
0.05
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
IE
0.72
Within Subjects
Time
Time & IE
F
Note: *p<.050., IE = students’ satisfaction with instructional environment, Time = the pre-test and
the post-test.
Table 4.19b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction with
Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Pre-test
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
M=
ANOVA 1
M=
2
3
4
M=
M=
M=
5
M=
Leg I
1.19
4.50
4.46
4.62
4.59
4.95
0.97
4.73
4.55
4.54
4.48
4.84
I
0.47
3.96
4.26
4.16
4.21
4.46
0.14
4.07
4.33
4.21
4.26
4.25
2.29
4.10
4.20
4.01
4.29
4.69
0.24
4.00
4.35
4.18
4.25
4.31
0.13
3.95
3.92
3.98
3.91
3.87
0.83
3.95
3.86
4.00
3.96
3.66
3.27*
4.20
3.88
4.29
4.10
4.89
2.10
4.73
3.91
4.21
4.13
4.67
3.08*
3.63
4.23
4.20
4.44
4.66
0.95
3.87
4.55
4.21
4.34
4.38
1.30
3.25
4.06
3.96
4.03
4.26
0.58
3.93
4.36
4.01
4.07
4.15
2.80*
2.95
3.68
3.86
3.78
4.26
1.02
4.00
3.95
3.84
3.81
4.22
1.64
3.00
3.79
3.88
3.95
4.04
0.98
3.40
4.20
4.05
3.99
3.86
7.66***
3.46
4.15
4.19
4.66
5.00
3.44**
3.25
4.42
4.32
4.55
4.69
2.36
4.20
3.77
3.96
3.65
4.27
0.85
4.53
4.02
3.98
3.84
3.87
Jud
Hiel I
Glo
I
Lib I
Exe
II
Mon II
Loc
II
Con II
Ext
III
Int III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Conditions: 1=extremely dissatisfy, 2=dissatisfy, 3=no
comment, 4=satisfy, and 5=extremely satisfy. Styles: Leg=legislative, Jud=judicial,
Hie=hierarchical, Glo=global, Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic, Loc=local,
Ext=external, Int=internal, Con=conservative,. I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
169
Table 4.19c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Satisfaction
with Instructional Environment in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Tests
Styles
Levels of Satisfaction (a)
Levels of Satisfaction (b)
Pre-test
Liberal I
Dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-1.01
Satisfied
Extremely satisfied
-0.79
Extremely dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-1.31
Extremely dissatisfied
Satisfied
-1.20
Extremely dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-1.54
Dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-0.85
No comment
Satisfied
-0.47
No comment
Extremely satisfied
-0.81
Extremely dissatisfied
Satisfied
-1.30
Extremely dissatisfied
Extremely satisfied
-1.44
Local
II
External
Post-test External
III
III
M.D. (a-b)
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. M.D.=Mean Difference, Styles: I=Type I,
II
=Type II, III=Type III.
Subsequent paired t-tests (in Table 4.19d) revealed that the learning styles of
students in the experimental group changed in an opposite way than expected.
Those students who were dissatisfied with their instructional environment scored
significantly higher on the conservative II style (Mpre = 3.66; Mpost = 4.20; t = 2.86,
p < .05) in the post-test than in the pre-test. Those students who were satisfied
with their instructional environment scored significantly lower on the legislative I
(Mpre = 4.60; Mpost = 4.48; t = -2.45, p < .05) and external III styles (Mpre = 4.66;
Mpost = 4.55; t = -2.21, p < .05) and significantly higher on the internal III styles
(Mpre = 3.65; Mpost = 3.84; t = 2.65, p < .01) in the post-test than in the pre-test. If
their ratings of satisfaction with the instructional environment moved from
satisfied to extremely satisfied, students scored significantly lower on the
hierarchical I (Mpre = 4.69; Mpost = 4.31; t = -2.34, p < .05) and internal III (Mpre =
4.27; Mpost = 3.87; t = -2.66, p < .05) styles in the post-test than they did on the
pre-test. In general, these results suggested that students used Type II learning
styles more frequently regardless of their levels of satisfaction with the
instructional environment.
170
Table 4.19d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Satisfaction with Instructional
Environment (Experimental Group)
Satisfaction
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
Pre-test (a)
Post-test (b)
Diff (b – a)
0.73
3.66 L
4.20 H
0.55
-2.45*
0.18
4.60
H
L
-0.12
-2.21*
0.16
4.66 H
4.55 L
-0.11
2.65**
0.23
3.65
L
H
-2.34*
0.41
4.69 H
4.32 L
-0.38
0.39
H
L
-0.40
with IE
Dissatisfy
Satisfy
Conservative II
Legislative
External III
Internal
Extremely
Satisfy
III
Hierarchic I
Internal
III
I
M
2.86*
-2.66*
4.27
4.48
3.84
3.87
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles,
0.19
H
= Higher in
mean score.
Perceived teachers’ ability. In the control group, the Wilks’ Lambda test (in
Table 4.20a) revealed that the main effect of perceived teacher’s ability (F = 1.89,
p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.83) was significant, indicating that students with different
perceptions of teachers’ ability (i.e., bad, unsatisfactory, so-so, satisfactory, and
excellent) had different learning styles. One-way ANOVAs (Table 4.20b) were
used to examine the mean differences in students’ learning styles among students
with different perceptions on teachers’ ability in the pre-test and the post-test. The
main effect of time failed to reach significance (p > .05), thereby this result
indicated that students’ learning styles did not significantly change from the
pre-test to the post-test. Subsequent to this finding, paired t-tests (Table 4.20d)
were performed to indicate the changes. However, the interaction effect was
significant (F = 1.66, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.85). This result indicated that there
were significant differences in the changes in learning styles over time based on
students’ perceptions of teachers’ ability.
In the pre-test, results of the one-way ANOVAs (Table 4.20b) and post-hoc
comparisons (Table 4.20c) showed that significant mean differences in students’
learning styles were mainly obtained in the judicial I and executive II styles. Those
students who perceived their teachers’ ability as poor scored significantly lower
171
on the judicial I style than those students who perceived their teachers’ ability as
so-so, satisfactory, and excellent. In addition, those students who perceived their
teachers’ ability as poor scored significantly lower on the executive II style than
those students who perceived their teachers’ ability as unsatisfactory, so-so,
satisfactory, and excellent. In the post-test, the post-hoc comparisons showed that
significant mean differences were mainly obtained in the external III style. Those
students who perceived their teachers’ ability as very good scored significantly
higher on the external III style than those students who perceived their teachers’
ability as unsatisfactory, so-so, and satisfactory. Detailed results of the post-hoc
tests are reported in Table 4.20c.
Table 4.20a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived
Teachers’ Ability (Control Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
1.89***
44.00
1685.29
0.05
0.96
1.54
11.00
440.00
0.04
0.85
1.66**
44.00
1685.29
0.04
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
TA
0.83
Within Subjects
Time
Time & TA
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, TA = students’ perceived teachers’ ability, Time = the
pre-test and the post test.
As Table 4.20d shows, students in the control group increased their use of
three Type I (the judicial, global, and liberal styles) styles and one Type III style
(the internal style) after the experiment if they perceived their teacher’s ability as
so-so. They scored significantly higher on the judicial I (Mpre = 3.95; Mpost = 4.08;
t = 2.19, p < .05), global I (Mpre = 3.81; Mpost = 3.92; t = 2.28, p < .05), liberal I
(Mpre = 4.01; Mpost = 4.18; t = 2.70, p < .01), and internal III (Mpre = 3.63; Mpost =
3.90; t = 4.15, p < .001) styles from the pre-test to the post-test. Those students
who perceived their teacher’s ability as satisfactory increased significantly their
use of the liberal I (Mpre = 4.05; Mpost = 4.16; t = 2.08, p < .05), monarchic II (Mpre
= 4.00; Mpost = 4.14; t = 2.81, p < .01), and internal III (Mpre = 3.60; Mpost = 3.73; t
172
= 2.31, p < .05) styles from the pre-test to the post-test. These results showed that
students’ learning styles changed according to their ratings of teacher’s ability.
Students’ tended to employ diverse types of learning styles when they perceived
that their teachers had higher ability.
Table 4.20b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Perceived Teachers’
Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Pre-test
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
M=
ANOVA 1
M=
2
3
4
M=
M=
M=
5
M=
Leg
I
4.97***
4.07
4.59
4.44
4.51
4.96
1.47
5.11
4.37
4.48
4.48
4.71
Jud
I
3.03*
2.80
3.95
3.95
4.05
4.10
1.18
3.15
3.95
4.08
4.06
4.03
I
Hiel
3.05*
3.27
4.00
4.05
4.23
4.20
2.45*
3.00
4.18
4.07
4.19
4.24
Glo
I
3.39**
3.33
4.06
3.81
3.83
4.10
1.91
3.38
4.01
3.92
3.85
4.13
Lib
I
2.02
4.00
4.06
4.01
4.04
4.43
0.09
4.20
4.12
4.18
4.16
4.11
Exe
II
5.90***
2.73
4.19
4.07
4.32
4.14
1.81
3.73
4.05
4.13
4.28
4.36
Mon
II
1.27
3.47
3.83
3.85
3.99
4.00
1.73
3.53
3.99
3.96
4.14
3.97
Loc
II
2.10
3.60
3.47
3.69
3.80
3.89
2.50*
3.33
3.40
3.76
3.86
3.89
Con
II
1.30
3.07
3.68
3.77
3.86
3.80
2.85*
3.07
3.68
3.78
3.96
4.08
5.08***
3.47
4.24
4.27
4.51
4.64
3.31*
4.40
4.19
4.37
4.42
4.82
0.35
3.60
3.78
3.63
3.60
3.66
1.36
4.33
3.72
3.90
3.73
3.67
Ext
Int
III
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001.Percetions of teachers’ ability 1=bad, 2=unsatisfactory,
3=so-so, 4=satisfactory, and 5=excellent. Styles: Leg=legislative, Jud=judicial, Hie=hierarchical,
Glo=global, Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic, Loc=local, Ext=external, Int=internal,
Con=conservative, I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
173
Table 4.20c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Perceived
Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Tests
Pre-test
Styles
Legislative
I
Judicial
Liberal
I
Executive
External
Post-test
I
II
III
Local II
External
II
Perceptions of
Perceptions of
Mean Difference
Teachers’ Ability (a)
Teachers’ Ability (b)
(a-b)
So-so
Excellent
-0.52
Satisfactory
Excellent
-0.42
Bad
So-so
-1.15
Bad
Satisfactory
-1.25
Bad
Excellent
-1.30
So-so
Excellent
-0.03
Bad
Unsatisfactory
-1.45
Bad
So-so
-1.34
Bad
Satisfactory
-1.58
Bad
Excellent
-1.41
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.25
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.24
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
-0.46
Unsatisfactory
Excellent
-0.63
So-so
Excellent
-0.45
Satisfactory
Excellent
-0.40
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Styles: I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
Table 4.20d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived Teachers’ Ability (Control
Group)
Perceived
TSI-R2
t
d
teachers’ ability Scales
Normal
Pre-test (a)
Judicial
I
Global I
Liberal
I
Internal III
Satisfactory
Liberal
M
I
Monarchic II
Internal
III
L
Post-test (b)
0.13
2.19*
0.19
3.95
2.28*
0.19
3.81 L
3.92 H
0.11
2.70**
0.22
4.01
L
4.18
H
0.17
4.15***
0.32
3.63 L
3.90
2.08*
0.14
4.05
L
2.81**
0.19
0.15
2.31*
4.08
Diff (b – a)
H
0.26
H
0.12
4.00 L
4.14H
0.14
L
H
0.13
3.60
4.16
3.73
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles, H =
Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score. Only significant results were reported.
174
In the experimental group, the results of the Wilks’ Lambda test (in Table
4.21a) revealed that the main effect of students’ perceived teacher’s ability (F =
1.58 p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.71) was significant, indicating that students with
different perceptions of teachers’ ability (i.e., bad, unsatisfactory, so-so,
satisfactory, and excellent) had different learning styles. To indicate the
differences in mean scale scores among different levels of perception on teachers’
ability in the pre-test and the post-test, one-way ANOVAs (Table 4.21b) were
performed. The main effect of time and interaction effect were both insignificant.
These results indicated that the factor of perceived teachers’ ability did not
contribute to the changes in learning styles over time.
Table 4.21a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived Teachers’
Ability (Experimental Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. Df
Error df
η2
1.58
44.00
747.98
0.08
0.92
1.60
11.00
195.00
0.08
0.75
1.32
44.00
747.98
0.07
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
TA
0.71
Within Subjects
Time
Time & TA
F
Note: *p<.050. TA = students’ perceived teachers’ ability, Time = the pre-test and the post-test.
In the pre-test, results of the one-way ANOVAs (Table 4.21b) and post-hoc
comparisons (Table 4.21c) showed those students who perceived their teachers’
ability as so-so scored significantly lower on the hierarchical I, conservative II, and
external
III
styles than those students who perceived their teachers’ ability as
normal, satisfactory, and very good. In addition, those students who perceived
their teachers’ ability as so-so scored significantly lower on the hierarchical I, local
II
, and external III styles than those students who perceived their teachers’ ability as
excellent. In the post-test, the post-hoc comparisons showed that significant mean
differences were found in three styles. Those students who perceived their
teachers’ ability as so-so scored significantly higher on the hierarchical I,
175
executive II, and external III styles than those students who perceived their teachers’
ability as satisfactory. Detailed results of the post-hoc tests are reported in Table
4.21c.
Table 4.21b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Perceived Teachers’
Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Pre-test
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
M=
ANOVA 1
M=
2
3
4
M=
M=
M=
5
M=
I
1.80
4.40
4.72
4.53
4.61
5.00
0.66
4.53
4.70
4.43
4.52
4.67
Jud I
1.97
4.41
4.31
4.00
4.27
4.49
1.18
4.87
4.20
4.14
4.28
4.36
5.04***
4.55
4.33
3.94
4.32
4.82
2.15
4.20
4.22
4.01
4.34
4.35
Glo I
1.21
4.45
3.68
3.88
3.95
3.95
1.41
4.20
3.78
3.88
4.01
3.69
I
1.84
4.40
4.05
4.06
4.18
4.75
1.26
3.93
4.00
4.08
4.20
4.58
2.23
4.38
4.28
4.18
4.45
4.67
2.87*
5.00
4.42
4.10
4.40
4.26
1.16
3.90
4.23
3.87
4.05
4.27
1.77
4.60
4.22
3.88
4.13
4.13
2.82
3.45
3.92
3.63
3.83
4.33
1.79
3.80
3.98
3.74
3.85
4.31
2.75*
4.15
4.00
3.63
4.01
4.09
2.08
4.33
3.98
3.87
4.08
3.60
5.12***
4.55
4.42
4.18
4.67
4.87
4.07*
5.00
4.47
4.18
4.59
4.71
1.91
4.10
3.70
3.83
3.67
4.38
0.26
3.93
4.03
3.91
3.85
4.02
Leg
I
Hiel
Lib
Exe II
Mon
II
Loc II
Con
II
Ext III
Int
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. 1=extremely dissatisfy, 2=dissatisfy, 3=no comment,
4=satisfy, and 5=extremely satisfy. Leg=legislative, Jud=judicial, Hie=hierarchical, Glo=global,
Lib=liberal, Exe=executive, Mon=monarchic, Loc=local, Ext=external, Int=internal,
Con=conservative,. I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
As noted in Table 4.21d, subsequent paired t-tests revealed that students in
the experimental group increased significantly their use of the conservative II (Mpre
= 3.60; Mpost = 3.87; t = 2.52 p < .05) and the internal III (Mpre = 3.67 Mpost = 3.85; t
= 2.19 p < .05) styles from the pre-test to the post-test if they perceived their
teacher’s ability as so-so to satisfactory. When students rated their teacher’s ability
as excellent, they decreased significantly their use of the conservative II style (Mpre
= 4.09; Mpost = 3.60; t = -2.17, p < .05) from the pre-test to the post-test. These
results suggested that students’ learning styles were influenced by their ratings of
teacher’s ability. Students decreased their use of the conservative and internal
176
styles when they perceived that their teachers had higher ability.
Table 4.21c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Students’ Perceived
Teachers’ Ability in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Test
Styles
Pre
hierarchical
Local
I
II
Conservative
External
II
III
Hierarchical I
Post
Executive
II
External III
Condition (a)
Condition (b)
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.39
So-so
Excellent
-0.83
So-so
Excellent
-0.70
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.37
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.49
So-so
Excellent
-0.70
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.34
So-so
Satisfactory
-0.30
So-so
Satisfactory
I
Mean Diff. (a-b)
-0.41
II
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Styles: =Type I, =Type II, III=Type III.
Table 4.21d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Perceived Teachers’ Ability
(Experimental Group)
Perceived
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
teachers’ ability
M
Pre-test (a)
Normal
Conservative
Satisfactory
Very Good
II
L
Post-test (b)
0.27
2.52*
0.38
3.60
Internal III
2.19*
0.21
3.67 L
3.85 H
0.18
Conservative II
-2.17*
0.80
4.09 H
3.60 L
-0.49
I
II
3.87
Diff (b – a)
H
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, = Type I Styles, = Type II Styles, = Type III Styles, H =
Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score. Only significant results were reported.
Mother’s educational qualifications. In the control group, the Wilks’ Lambda
test showed (in Table 4.22a) that the main effect of mother’s educational
qualification (F = 1.50, p < .05, Wilks’ λ = 0.82) was significant, indicating that
students’ learning styles were significantly different across the five levels of
educational qualification (i.e., primary, secondary, certificate, master’s, and
doctorate levels). In the pre-test and post-test, one-way ANOVAs (Table 4.22b)
were performed to examine the differences in mean scale scores among students
177
whose mother had different levels of educational qualification. The main effect of
time and the interaction effect were insignificant. These results indicated that the
factor of mother’s educational qualifications did not contribute to the changes in
learning styles overtime.
Table 4.22a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s Educational
Qualification (Control Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. Df
Error df
η2
1.50*
55.00
1933.79
0.04
0.98
0.70
11.00
417.00
0.02
0.91
0.76
55.00
1933.79
0.02
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
Mother
0.82
Within Subjects
Time
Time & Mother
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Mother = educational qualification of student’s mother,
Time = the pre-test and the post-test.
In the pre-test (Table 4.22b), results of the one-way ANOVAs showed that
students had different learning styles when their mothers attained different levels
of educational qualifications. The post-hoc tests showed that the mean difference
between students whose mothers completed primary school and students whose
mothers had a master’s degree was significant at the .05 level for the legislative I
style. In the post-test, the post-hoc tests showed that the mean differences between
students whose mothers completed primary school and students whose mothers
had a master’s degree were significant at the 0.50 level for the legislative I and
hierarchical
I
styles. The mean difference between students whose mothers
completed secondary school and students whose mothers had a master’s degree
was significant at the .05 level for the hierarchical style. Detailed results of the
post-hoc tests are presented in Table 4.22c.
178
Table 4.22b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mothers’ Educational
Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Pre-test
Leg
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
I
M=
ANOVA 1
M=
2
3
4
5
M=
M=
M=
M=
2.23*
4.42
4.52
4.69
4.59
5.06
3.12**
4.35
4.48
4.74
4.51
5.11
0.93
3.96
3.99
4.04
4.22
4.06
2.19
3.97
4.02
4.28
4.18
4.58
1.72
4.01
4.16
4.43
4.27
4.29
3.77**
3.94
4.12
4.37
4.24
4.78
Glo I
0.76
3.86
3.83
3.92
4.01
3.87
1.12
3.81
3.87
3.99
4.09
3.93
I
1.14
3.96
4.06
4.30
4.11
4.35
2.24*
4.07
4.14
4.41
4.13
4.80
2.21
4.06
4.20
4.37
4.43
4.38
1.72
4.04
4.21
4.39
4.41
4.44
0.74
3.88
3.96
4.04
3.94
3.58
1.10
3.93
4.07
4.21
4.08
3.71
Loc II
0.64
3.75
3.77
3.77
3.71
3.60
0.90
3.72
3.81
3.95
3.80
3.91
II
1.14
3.75
3.82
3.76
4.06
3.62
1.74
3.70
3.88
4.10
4.10
4.00
Ext III
1.32
4.43
4.39
4.48
4.48
4.95
1.09
4.34
4.41
4.49
4.51
4.82
1.56
3.43
3.64
3.67
3.72
3.98
2.26*
3.64
3.75
4.14
3.94
4.24
Jud I
I
Hiel
Lib
Exe II
Mon
Con
Int
II
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Conditions: 1=extremely dissatisfy, 2=dissatisfy, 3=no
comment,
4=satisfy,
Hie=hierarchical,
and
5=extremely
Glo=global,
satisfy.
Lib=liberal,
Styles:
Leg=legislative,
Exe=executive,
I
II
Mon=monarchic,
Jud=judicial,
Loc=local,
III
Ext=external, Int=internal, Con=conservative,. =Type I, =Type II, =Type III.
Table 4.22c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mothers’ Educational
Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Control Group)
Tests
Styles
Pre-test
Legislative I
Post-test
Legislative
I
Hierarchical
I
Condition (a)
Condition (b)
Mean Difference (a-b)
Primary
Master
-0.63
Primary
Master
-0.76
Primary
Master
-0.84
Secondary
Master
-0.66
I
II
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Styles: =Type I, =Type II, III=Type III.
Subsequent paired t-tests (in Table 4.22d) revealed that significant changes in
students’ learning styles from the pre-test to the post-test were found in different
levels of mothers’ educational qualification: primary, secondary, certificate, and
master’s levels. Interestingly, students’ Type II learning styles (i.e., the monarchic
II
and conservative II styles) and the internal style increased significantly from the
pre-test to the post-test when their mother attained primary, secondary, and
179
certificate educational levels. However, Type I learning styles (i.e., the judicial I,
hierarchical I, and liberal I styles) increased significantly from the pre-test to the
post-test when their mother attained the master’s degree level. These results
suggested that students’ learning styles changed depending on their mother’s
educational qualification and that their mother’s high qualification (i.e., attained a
master’s degree level) could help students to develop Type I learning styles. Table
4.21b shows the results of the paired t-tests on the TSI-R2 scales based on
mother’s educational qualification.
Table 4.22d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s Educational Qualification
(Control Group)
Mother’s
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
Educational
M
Pre-test (a)
Post-test (b)
Diff (b – a)
Qualification
Primary
Internal III
2.24*
0.24
3.43 L
3.63 H
0.20
Secondary
Monarchic II
2.16*
0.18
3.96 L
4.09 H
0.14
0.15
3.65
L
3.77
H
0.13
L
4.10
H
0.34
Internal
Certificate
III
Conservative
Internal III
Master
Judicial
I
Hierarchic I
Liberal
I
2.08*
II
2.27*
0.54
3.76
2.61*
0.67
3.67 L
4.14 H
0.47
2.70*
0.65
4.05
L
H
0.53
3.81**
0.52
4.28 L
4.78 H
0.50
0.53
L
H
0.46
3.43*
4.35
4.58
4.80
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles,
H
=
L
Higher in mean score, = Lower in mean score.
In the experimental group, the results of the Wilk’s Lambda test showed that
the main effect (F = 1.71, p < .01, Wilks’λ = 0.68) of mother’s educational
qualification was significant. This result meant that students’ learning styles were
significantly different across the five levels of educational qualification. In the
pre-test and post-test, one-way ANOVAs were performed to examine the
differences in mean scale scores between students whose mothers had different
levels of educational qualification. The main effect of tests and the interaction
180
effect were insignificant. These results indicated that the changes in learning
styles from the pre-test to the post-test were not dependent on their mothers’
educational qualifications. Table 4.23a shows the results of the repeated-measures
MANOVA.
Table 4.23a Repeated-measures MANOVA on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s Educational
Qualification (Experimental Group)
Wilks’ λ
Hypo. df
Error df
η2
1.71**
44.00
709.72
0.09
0.91
1.58
11.00
185.00
0.09
0.80
0.97
44.00
709.72
0.05
Effects
Measures
Between Subjects
Mother
0.68
Within Subjects
Time
Time & Mother
F
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, Mother = educational qualification of student’s mother,
Time = the pre-test and the post-test.
In the pre-test (Table 4.23b), results of the one-way ANOVAs showed that
students had different learning styles when their mothers attained different levels
of educational qualifications. The post-hoc tests showed that the mean difference
between students whose mothers completed primary school and students whose
mothers had a master’s degree was significant at the .05 level for the legislative I
style. The mean difference between students whose mothers completed primary
school and students whose mothers had a bachelor degree was also significant at
the .05 level for the hierarchical style. In the post-test, the post-hoc tests showed
that the mean differences between students whose mothers completed secondary
school and whose mothers had a bachelor degree were significant at the .05 level
for the liberal I, executive II, and the conservative II styles. Detailed results of the
post-hoc tests are presented in Table 4.23c.
181
Table 4.23b One-way ANOVAs on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mothers’ Educational
Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Pre-test
Leg
Post-test
ANOVA 1
2
3
4
5
F=
M=
M=
M=
M= F=
I
M=
ANOVA 1
M=
2
3
4
5
M=
M=
M=
M=
3.30*
4.39
4.63
4.54
4.85
5.17
0.94
4.42
4.52
4.58
4.79
4.37
1.19
4.08
4.24
4.16
4.28
4.77
0.88
4.13
4.27
4.34
4.18
4.63
2.95*
3.97
4.22
4.44
4.68
4.53
0.97
4.05
4.26
4.42
4.40
4.27
Glo I
0.28
3.86
3.94
3.81
3.99
3.90
0.64
3.85
3.98
4.02
3.81
4.10
I
1.84
4.13
4.11
4.39
4.61
4.47
2.09
4.11
4.13
4.27
4.71
4.30
2.37
4.32
4.42
4.01
4.55
4.77
2.64*
4.22
4.39
3.89
4.41
4.57
2.46*
3.81
4.02
3.82
4.43
4.50
0.87
3.93
4.08
4.10
4.36
4.13
1.32
3.85
3.78
3.68
4.15
3.50
1.68
3.95
3.83
3.64
4.20
3.97
2.50*
3.70
4.02
3.52
4.04
4.07
3.44**
3.76
4.11
3.60
4.12
4.07
0.42
4.61
4.52
4.46
4.68
4.78
0.90
4.34
4.51
4.42
4.72
4.69
1.29
3.58
3.78
3.52
4.12
3.87
0.78
3.77
3.95
3.79
3.99
3.53
Jud I
I
Hiel
Lib
Exe II
Mon
II
Loc II
Con
II
Ext III
Int
III
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. Conditions: 1=extremely dissatisfy, 2=dissatisfy, 3=no
comment,
4=satisfy,
Hie=hierarchical,
and
5=extremely
Glo=global,
satisfy.
Lib=liberal,
Styles:
Leg=legislative,
Exe=executive,
I
II
Mon=monarchic,
Jud=judicial,
Loc=local,
III
Ext=external, Int=internal, Con=conservative,. =Type I, =Type II, =Type III.
Table 4.23c Post-hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mothers’ Educational
Qualification in the Pre-test and the Post-test (Experimental Group)
Tests
Styles
Pre-test
Legislative I
Hierarchical
Post-test
I
Liberal I
Executive
I
Conservative
II
Condition (a)
Condition (b)
Mean Difference (a-b)
Primary
Master
-0.78
Primary
Bachelor
-0.71
Secondary
Bachelor
-0.58
Secondary
Certificate
-0.50
Secondary
Certificate
-0.51
Note: The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Styles: I=Type I, II=Type II, III=Type III.
As Table 4.23d shows, students in the experimental group scored
significantly lower on the external III style (Mpre = 4.61; Mpost = 4.34; t = -2.15, p
< .05) from the pre-test to the post-test if their mother graduated from primary
school. Students scored significantly higher on the internal III style (Mpre = 3.78;
182
Mpost = 3.95; t =2.39, p < .05) from the pre-test to the post-test if their mother
graduated from secondary school. These results suggested that mother’s low
educational qualification facilitated students’ development of Type II learning
styles and the internal style.
Table 4.23d Paired T-tests on the TSI-R2 Scales Based on Mother’s Educational
Qualification (Experimental Group)
Mother’s
TSI-R2 Scales
t
d
Educational
M
Pre-test (a)
Post-test (b)
Diff (b – a)
Qualification
Primary
External III
-2.15*
0.38
4.61 H
4.34 L
-0.27
Secondary
Internal III
2.39*
0.21
3.78 L
3.95 H
0.17
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, I = Type I Styles, II = Type II Styles, III = Type III Styles, H =
Higher in mean score, L = Lower in mean score. Only significant results were reported.
In summary, the results of this study provided two justifications to support
the contention that styles are malleable. First, significant changes were found in
students’ learning styles in the control and the experimental groups from the
pre-test to the post-test. In an overall view of the results, students in both the
control and the experiment groups decreased and increased their use of certain
styles; however, students in the control group generally tended to employ more
Type II styles than Type I styles in learning whereas students in the experimental
group seemed to be less likely to employ Type II styles in learning. In other words,
students in the control group preferred to learn in a more norm-conforming way
and students in the experimental group preferred to learn in a more
creativity-generating way as a result of the experiment.
Second, as expected, results revealed that demographic differences were
related to the changes in students’ learning styles. That is to say, the changes in
students’ learning styles differed by the demographic characteristics in both the
control and the experimental groups. Although the interaction effects between
183
demographic variables and tests were generally insignificant in the Wilks’
Lambda tests (except that the interaction effects were significant between
students’ satisfaction with instructional environment and tests, and between
students’ perceived teachers’ ability and tests), the results of the subsequent paired
t-tests facilitated a closer look at the specific changes in each learning style based
on each level of demographic characteristic. Two patterns of changes were
observed in the control and the experimental groups when students’ demographic
characteristics were taken into account. In general, students in the control group
increased their use of Type II styles together with the internal style after learning
in an environment that mixed different types of teaching styles. This study found
some evidence that students’ demographic characteristics played a role in the
changes in learning styles. Male students increased their use of the monarchic II,
local II, and internal
III
styles from the pre-test to the post-test. Regardless of
students’ satisfaction with the instructional environment, they used the executive II,
conservative II, monarchic II, local II, and internal
III
styles more frequently after
the instruction period. Students were also more likely to employ the monarchic
and internal
III
II
styles when they perceived their teachers’ abilities as very good.
Furthermore, the result showed that the use of the monarchic II, conservative II,
and internal
III
styles also increased significantly from the pre-test to the post-test
for those students’ whose mothers attained primary school or certificate levels of
qualifications.
This
evidence
demonstrated
that
students’ demographic
characteristics played an important role in the changes in Type II learning styles in
the control group.
Although changes in students’ learning styles differed by their demographic
characteristics, the degree of demographic influence seemed to have diminished in
the experimental group from the pre-test to the post-test. The demographic
influences on the changes in students’ learning styles were commonly observed in
the conservative II, external
III
, and internal
184
III
styles from the pre-test to the
post-test. Female students decreased their use of the external style and increased
their use of the internal style after the instruction period. These results were again
obtained in the other three demographic characteristics investigated; they were
satisfaction with instructional environment, perceived teachers’ ability, and
mothers’ educational qualification. Students decreased their use of the external
style and increased their use of the internal style from the pre-test to the post-test
when they were satisfied with the instructional environment, perceived teachers’
ability as satisfactory, and their mothers were primary and secondary school
graduates. Furthermore, students also used the conservative style more frequently
when they were dissatisfied with the instructional environment and perceived
teachers’ ability as normal. These results indicated that demographic
characteristics played a role in the development of students’ learning styles.
These results were of sufficient magnitude to denote that styles are malleable
and that they can be trained and modified. The types of teaching styles that
teachers employed in creating the instructional environment did affect the
development of students’ learning styles. To investigate whether or not any
parallel gain was obtained in the experiment, this study also explored the
experimental effects of teachers’ teaching styles on students’ career interests. A
series of statistical analyses were performed and results are explained in the next
section.
4.3.3
Parallel Effects on Students’ Career Interests
In addition to the experimental effects on students’ learning styles, this study
also aimed to investigate if parallel effects existed for students’ career interests. In
the post-test, students responded to the Self-directed Search (SDS, Holland, 1994)
to explore the types of careers that they were interested in. These data were used
to examine the differences in student’s career interest types between the control
and the experimental groups. This study was conducted to answer the research
185
question (question 3): What are the differences in students’ career interest types
between the control and the experimental groups? The results of the MANOVA,
ANOVA, and independent t-tests were presented.
4.3.3.1
MANOVA analyses of students’ demographic characteristics with the
SDS Scales
The MANOVA tests were carried out for two purposes. The first was to
examine the effects of demographic characteristics on students’ career interest
types. The second was to determine if any demographic characteristics needed to
be controlled in the subsequent data analysis procedures. The data between the
control and the experimental groups in the post-test were analyzed separately with
one-factor (students’ demographic characteristics) MANOVA with the eleven
learning styles as the dependent variables. The “partial eta squared (η2)” was used
to indicate the effect size of the MANOVA analyses.
Table 4.24 shows the results of the MANOVA tests for the control group. The
results of Wilks’ lambda tests revealed that there were significant differences in
students’ career interests based on gender (F = 42.28, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.64),
favorite subjects (F = 8.13, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.50), banding (F = 8.45, p
< .001; Wilks’λ = 0.90), satisfaction with instructional environment (F = 3.23, p
< .001; Wilks’λ = 0.85), extra-curricular activities (F = 3.70, p < .001; Wilks’λ
= 0.68), father’s educational qualification (F = 2.26, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.86),
and mother’s educational qualification (F = 2.28, p < .05; Wilks’λ = 0.86). The
effect sizes for these differences generally ranged from medium to large. Students’
perceptions of teacher’s ability and frequency of participating in extra-curricular
activities were not found to be statistically significant.
186
Table 4.24 MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the SDS Scales (Control
Group)
Measures
Wilks’ λ
F
H. df
Error df
η2
Gender
0.64
42.28***
6.00
455.00
0.36
Favorite subjects
0.50
8.13***
42.00
2118.83
0.11
Banding
0.90
8.45***
6.00
457.00
0.10
Satisfaction with IE
0.85
3.23***
24.00
1585.03
0.04
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.93
1.40
24.00
1585.03
0.02
Extra-curricular activities
0.68
3.70***
48.00
2218.25
0.06
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.95
1.39
18.00
1270.45
0.02
Father’s educational qualification
0.86
2.26***
30.00
1710.00
0.03
Mother’s educational qualification
0.86
2.28***
30.00
1722.00
0.03
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = Instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H.df=Hypothesis df.
Table 4.25 shows the results of the MANOVA tests for the experimental
group. The results of Wilks’ lambda tests revealed that there were significant
differences in students’ career interests based on gender (F = 19.00, p < .001;
Wilks’λ = 0.65), favorite subjects (F = 3.46, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.56), and
extra-curricular activities (F = 1.87, p < .001; Wilks’λ = 0.65). The effect sizes
for these differences generally ranged from medium to large. There were no
significant differences in students’ learning styles based on banding, satisfaction
with instructional environment, perceived teacher’s ability, frequency of
participating in extra-curricular activities, and father’s and mother’s educational
qualifications.
To summarize, based on the MANOVA analyses, results demonstrated that
students’ career interests differed with varying demographic characteristics.
Among all demographic characteristics, significant demographic differences were
frequently found in gender, favorite subjects, and extra-curricular activities. Thus,
it was possible that these three demographic characteristics played a significant
role in their development of certain types of career interests. To facilitate an
187
understanding on how students developed different career interests between the
control and the experimental groups, the experimental effects on students’ career
interest types were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and independent t-tests.
ANOVAs were conducted to examine the differences in students’ career interest
types between the control and the experimental groups. Independent t-tests were
conducted next to investigate in detail how students’ career interest types differed
based on gender, favorite subjects, and extra-curricular activities. Results of
ANOVA and independent t-tests are presented in the sub-section 4.3.3.2 and
4.3.3.3, respectively. To present the results clearly, subscripts of C (C) and E (E)
were used to represent results of the control and the experimental groups,
respectively.
Table 4.25 MANOVA on Students’ Demographic Characteristics with the SDS Scales
(Experimental Group)
Wilks’ λ
Measures
F
H. df
Error df
η2
Gender
0.65
19.00***
6.00
208.00
0.35
Favorite subjects
0.56
3.46***
36.00
894.20
0.09
Banding
0.98
0.79
6.00
208.00
0.02
Satisfaction with IE
0.91
0.82
24.00
716.37
0.02
Perceived teacher’s ability
0.90
0.91
24.00
716.37
0.03
Extra-curricular activities
0.65
1.87***
48.00
993.07
0.07
Frequency of participating in ECA
0.89
1.37
18.00
580.31
0.04
Father’s educational qualification
0.91
0.67
30.00
786.00
0.02
Mother’s educational qualification
0.86
1.31
24.00
681.48
0.04
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001. IE = Instructional Environment, ECA = Extra-curricular
Activities. H.df=Hypothesis df.
4.3.3.2
ANOVA analyses on students’ career interests types
As noted in Table 4.26, among the control and the experimental groups, the
social career interest type (MC = 14.84, ME = 15.39) was the most favorite type of
career interest whereas the realistic career interest type (MC = 12.00, ME = 11.76)
188
was the least favorite. These results demonstrated that students preferred to
interact with people rather than to control machines and manipulate objects in
pursuing their future careers.
Table 4.26 One-way ANOVAs on the SDS Scales Based on Groups
SDS
F
η
2
Scales
M
Control (a)
H
Experimental (b)
11.76
L
Realistic
0.70
0.00
12.00
Investigative
3.03
0.00
13.80 L
14.34 H
H
L
0.24
-0.54
Artistic
2.68
0.00
13.41
Social
4.04*
0.01
14.84 L
15.39 H
-0.55
L
H
-1.47
Enterprising
21.15***
0.03
13.73
Conventional
8.95**
0.26
13.26 L
H
12.83
Differences (a-b)
15.19
0.57
14.11 H
-0.85
L
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, = Higher in mean score, = Lower in mean score.
Comparing the six career interest types between students in the control and
those in the experimental groups, students in the experimental group scored
significantly higher on the social (MC = 14.84, ME = 15.39; F= 4.04, p < .05),
enterprising (MC = 13.73, ME = 15.19; F =21.15, p < .001), and conventional (MC
= 13.26, ME = 14.11; F= 8.95, p < .01) career interest types than those in the
control group. The effect sizes of the differences generally ranged from small to
large. As predicted, these results showed that students in the experimental group
had a wider range of career interests than those in the control group.
4.3.3.3
Independent t-tests on students’ career interests types
Based on the results obtained in the MANOVA analyses, independent t-tests
were performed based on gender, each academic subject (e.g., language and
economic) and on each kind of extra-curricular activities (e.g., sports and personal
development) in which students participated, to further explore the differences in
each career interest type between the control and the experimental groups. In
189
general, results from the independent t-tests revealed that students in the two
groups differed mainly in the enterprising and investigative career interest types.
As predicted, students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on the
enterprising and investigative career interest types than those in the control group
among the three demographic characteristics. Table 4.27 shows the results of the
independent samples t-tests on students’ career interest types between the two
groups.
Gender. The analyses revealed that there were significant gender differences
between students in the control and the experimental groups. Students in the
experimental group scored significantly higher on the enterprising career interest
type than those in the control group, for both males (MC = 14.15, ME = 15.22; t =
-2.66, p < .01) and females (MC = 13.02, ME = 15.16; t = -4.10, p < .001). In
addition, female students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on
the investigative (MC = 11.56, ME = 13.21; t = -3.66, p < .001) and conventional
(MC = 13.28, ME = 14.75; t = -3.21, p < .01) career interest types than those in the
control group.
Favorite subjects. Students’ enterprising and social types of career interests
differed significantly in two kinds of subjects: language and literature related and
commerce and economic related. In the experimental group, students scored
significantly higher on the enterprising career interest types than students in the
control group when they chose language and literature related subjects (MC =
13.35, ME = 15.18; t = -2.10, p < .05) or commerce and economics related subjects
(MC = 12.18, ME = 16.03; t = -2.32, p < .05) as their favorite kind of subjects. In
the control group, students scored significantly higher on the social career interest
types than students in the experimental group when they chose commerce and
economics related subjects (MC = 15.68, ME = 14.33; t = 2.45, p < .05) as their
favorite subjects. These results showed that students were interested in different
types of careers in respect to their choice of favorite subjects.
190
Table 4.27 Independent T-tests on the SDS Scales Based on Groups with Students’ Demographic
Characteristics
Measures
Gender
SDS Scales
t
d
M
Control
Exp
(a)
(b)
L
(a-b)
H
-1.06
Male
Enterprising
-2.66**
0.29
14.15
Female
Investigative
-3.66***
0.50
11.56 L
13.21 H
-1.66
0.57
13.02
L
H
-2.15
0.44
13.28 L
14.75 H
-1.47
L
H
-1.83
Enterprising
-4.10***
Conventional -3.21**
15.22
Diff
15.16
Favorite
LL
Enterprising
-2.10*
0.50
13.35
Favorite
CE
Social
2.45*
0.53
15.68 H
14.33 L
1.18
12.18
L
16.03
H
-3.85
L
15.21
H
-1.52
subjects
Enterprising
Multiple
Kind of ECA Multiple
participated
Sports
-2.32*
15.18
1.35
Investigative
-2.54*
0.45
13.69
Enterprising
-2.92**
0.52
13.55 L
15.46 H
-1.90
Conventional -2.16*
0.38
13.22
L
H
-1.30
-2.11*
0.30
14.14 L
15.21 H
-1.06
0.41
L
H
-1.40
Enterprising
Enterprising
-2.05*
13.37
14.52
14.78
Note: *p<.050. **p<.010, ***p<.001, ECA = Extra-curricular activity, LL = Language and
literature, CE = Commerce and economic, Exp = experimental group, H = Higher than the control
group, L = Lower than the control group.
Kind of extra-curricular activity participation. The enterprising career
interest type for students in the experimental group was significantly higher than
for students in the control group among two of extra-curricular activities: sports
(MC = 13.37, ME = 14.78; t = -2.05, p < .05) and multiple activities (MC = 14.14,
ME = 15.21; t = -2.11, p < .05). These results suggested that participation in
multiple kinds of extra-curricular activities and sports activities might facilitate
the development of students’ enterprising career interest type among those in the
experimental group.
These results demonstrated that students in the control group and the
experimental group were interested in different types of career interests. The
experimental group of students had a stronger interest in the enterprising and
investigative types of careers than students in the control group.
191
To summarize, in addition to the experimental effects on students’ learning
styles, this study provided two pieces of evidence to support the hypothesis that
the experiment had parallel effects existed on the development of students’ career
interests. First, students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on
the social, enterprising, and conventional types of career interests, which indicated
that students in the experimental group developed a broader range of career
interests than those students in the control group. Second, taking into account
students’ demographic characteristics, the career interest types of students in the
control group were further compared with those students in the experimental
group. Regardless of students’ gender, favorite kind of subjects, and the kinds of
extra-curricular activities in which they participated, students in the experimental
group scored significantly higher on the enterprising career interest type than
students in the control group. Furthermore, female students and those students
who were interested in studying multiple subjects scored significantly higher on
the investigative type of career interests. These results justified that the types of
teaching styles that teachers employed in creating the instructional environment
did affect the development of students’ career interests.
192
CHAPTER 5
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
This chapter presents the qualitative findings of Study Three. Sixteen
students participated in individual interviews (conducted two months after the
post-test data had been collected); eight interviewees were selected from the
control group and eight were selected from the experimental group. They
participated in in-depth interviews about their learning experiences during the
instruction period (the fall semester 2009-2010). The interviews were aimed at
exploring how the learning environment in the control and experimental groups
affected students’ learning and development, and, in particular, what effects the
traditional (used in the control group) and the creativity-generating (used in the
experimental group) instructional environments had on their learning styles and
career interests. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed, and were then
analyzed.
Equally important, Study 3 was also designed to cross-validate the
quantitative findings. As presented in Chapter 4, the quantitative findings showed
that students in both the control and the experimental groups changed their
learning styles in response to the respective instructional environments. Students
in the control group employed more Type II styles (i.e., the executive, monarchic,
local, and conservative styles) when they received instruction in the traditional
environment that encouraged the use of Type II learning styles. Although the
quantitative findings did not reveal that students in the experimental group
developed Type I learning styles, results showed that they used fewer Type II
learning styles in completing their learning tasks when they received instruction in
the creativity-generating environment that encouraged the use of Type I styles.
Since differences between the learning styles of students in the two groups
were found in the quantitative analyses, a qualitative analysis was conducted to
determine whether or not these findings would be confirmed via individual
193
interviews. This chapter consists of two sections: (a) changes in students’ learning
styles and (b) development of students’ career interests. The findings in these two
sections are based on the interview data and the descriptive explanations of the
students.
5.1
Changes in Students’ Learning Styles
This section focuses on the changes in learning styles of students in both the
control and the experimental groups after being taught in different instructional
environments for one semester. The results of the qualitative findings were
surprising. Although students in both groups demonstrated changes in their
learning styles after the instruction period, the qualitative findings were somewhat
inconsistent with the quantitative findings. In the control group, findings from the
interviews were consistent with those findings obtained from the quantitative
study. Results demonstrated that students showed features of using Type II
learning styles after the instruction period. However, in the experimental group,
the interview data were contrary to the quantitative findings, showing that
students gradually increased their use of Type I learning styles.
Interviewees in neither group had a conceptual understanding of learning
styles. Therefore, the concept of styles and their post-test reports (see Appendix H)
were briefly explained to each student before the interview was conducted. To
ensure that the interviewees’ responses to the questions accurately reflected their
experiences, they were instructed to explain their changes descriptively in terms
of the distinctive characteristics of their learning rather than in terms of learning
styles. For instance, “I preferred working in a group,” rather than “I preferred
using the external style in learning.” The interview transcripts were summarized
and analyzed to illustrate the changes in styles before and after the instruction
period, with explanations being illustrated by typical quotations from the
interviewees. Quotations from interviewees are indicated by numbers in the
194
control group (e.g., Student 1, 2, and 3) and by letters in the experimental group
(e.g., Student A, B, and C), respectively. T1 and T2 indicate the quotations that the
interviewees used to describe their learning before and after the instruction,
respectively.
5.1.1
Changes in Learning Styles of Students in the Control Group
Students in the control group described characteristics of their learning at the
beginning and the end of the instruction period. Results confirmed the prediction
that the interviewees’ account of learning in the Liberal Studies lessons would
reveal features that suggested increased use of Type II learning styles and that of
the external style. Three changes were commonly shared by students in this group.
First, students reported changing from using new strategies aimed at gaining
performance to following rules provided by their teachers for completing the
assignments and tasks. These changes suggested that students increased their use
of the executive and conservative learning styles. Second, students reported
changing from paying little attention to details to learning in a detail-oriented
manner. This change suggested that students increased their use of the local
learning style. Third, students reported changing from working alone and using
their own ideas to finish a task to participating in activities in which they could
exchange ideas and interact with peers. This change suggested that students
increased their use of the external learning style. These three common changes are
illustrated by interview data that are summarized in the following sub-sections.
5.1.1.1
Increased use of the executive and conservative styles
Consistent with the hypothesis, students in the control group used more Type
II styles in the traditional instructional environment. Four of the eight
interviewees (Students 1, 2, 4, and 5) showed increased use of the executive and
conservative styles in their Liberal Studies learning during the instruction period.
195
They reported that their increased use of these styles was related to their learning
experiences, and they narrated how the learning experiences led to the changes.
Before they began to receive instruction in this newly developed subject, they
were unaware of the curriculum and assessment guidelines. They expressed that
the subject was different from other traditional subjects, in which they were
encouraged to think freely and to finish their tasks independently. They perceived
that they did not have to sit passively, listen to lectures, or comply with rules.
Therefore, they initially treated the Liberal Studies class casually without paying
much attention to directions and guidelines.
After they failed several tests, the interviewees began to realize that Liberal
Studies was not free and unrestrained, but even more important, that they had to
conform to standard rules and pay attention to the teachers’ directions, especially
in the way they completed their assignments. To maintain better performance,
they began to adhere to the procedures requested by the teachers for performing
the tasks. They were more motivated to practice essential skills and tasks
repeatedly. Two interviewees (Students 2 and 3) pointed out specifically that
learning in these ways was “traditional”, but was essential to obtaining good
grades for their assignments. They gradually accepted this method of learning and
became accustomed to using the executive and conservative learning styles.
“I was flexible in changing my ways of learning depending on tasks and
situations. (T1)” “In order to keep my good performance in class, I
preferred to follow directions. I got used to learning in this conservative
way and I didn’t want to change it. (T2)” (Student 7)
“I knew nothing about Liberal Studies, so I tended to try new ways of
doing things. (T1)” “We had to follow definite rules when writing an
essay, or otherwise, we failed in our assignments. (T2)” (Student 2)
196
The experiences of Students 2 and 3 exemplified the response of interviewees
in this group. During the instruction period, they were trained to learn traditionally
and conservatively. Their successful experiences in using the executive and
conservative styles encouraged them to continue following the teachers’ specific
rules and directions.
5.1.1.2
Increased use of the local style
The quantitative findings indicated that the control group’s use of the liberal
style increased significantly from the pre-test to the post-test, but the qualitative
data demonstrated that four (Students 1, 3, 5, and 6) of the eight interviewees
increased their use of the local style. The interview data were more in line with
the hypothesis. They pointed out that learning the details and facts was as
important as understanding the overall issues. These two ways of learning were
not contradictory; the details and facts helped them to generate the overall view of
an issue, which was very important for dealing with their examinations.
“On the one hand, we were required to see the interconnections among
each learning issue and topic, so as to apply the understanding from
one area to others. On the other hand, we had to understand and
remember the concrete details in each learning area so as to give good
arguments in discussions or in assignments. They were both important.”
(Student 3)
Four interviewees narrated how they learned the Liberal Studies subject
matter during the instruction period, and their descriptions suggested that they
used the local style in learning. As the students expressed in the interviews, their
teachers were accustomed to preparing and lecturing them with a considerable
amount of materials and concrete details; however, the teachers did not teach them
197
how to generate an overall view of an issue or connect diverse information to
related topics. Thus, interviewees were trained to work with specific problems
rather than to deal with general issues. As a result of continuous practice and
repetition in their lessons, they became accustomed to emphasizing the concrete
details and to discussing the facts in a rote manner with as many details as
possible. There were times when students found that reciting the details was very
useful in expressing their points of view in discussions and in writing essays.
“I disregarded all the details when the teacher gave me a task. I
wandered from the subject easily. (T1)” “I liked to make a thorough
investigation of concrete details and memorize the facts about issues
that the teacher had taught. (T2)” (Student 5)
“I tended to pay little attention to details when I read some information.
Therefore, I missed most of the key points during discussion or writing.
(T1)” “You had to deal with the details, or otherwise, you couldn’t get a
good result in the assignments. I found out that the concrete details
would help me in analyzing and criticizing issues, which made the task
easier. (T2)” (Student 6)
The interviewees in this group indicated that remembering concrete details
and generalizing diverse issues were both important in learning the Liberal
Studies subject. However, they lacked the skills to make connections among
issues and details, and they were trained to deal with specific details and to recite
facts. Thus, they increased their use of the local style in learning the Liberal
Studies subject matter.
198
5.1.1.3
Increased use of the external style
The quantitative results found that students in the control group significantly
increased their use of the internal style. Inconsistent with this finding and the
hypothesis, the qualitative results suggested that the use of the external style
increased among six of the eight interviewees (Students 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7). They
indicated that they became accustomed to expressing their ideas and were more
accepting of working in small group tasks after being instructed in Liberal Studies
for one semester. The six interviewees had similar reasons to explain their
increased use of the external style.
As the students expressed during the interviews, they preferred to use and felt
more comfortable using their own ideas when discussing issues or doing projects.
They explained that their colleagues tended to be introverted, did not want to talk
during the discussions, or went beyond the topics frequently. In addition, they
thought that consulting others or combining their own ideas with those of others
was time-wasting. Therefore, they preferred to work alone rather than in groups.
The interviewees explained that their changes were the result of repeated
practice during the lessons. They further described how teachers lectured during
instruction most of the time but added small group activities such as discussions
and presentations. Although these activities were organized in a structured way
and students did similar kinds of activities with the same group members over the
semester, they acknowledged that these activities provided them with more
chances to exchange ideas and to collaborate with peers.
“I preferred to learn alone without having to consult and rely on others.
(T1)” “Comparing the Liberal Studies lessons with other subjects such
as Chinese Language and history, we had more chances in Liberal
Studies to discuss, debate, or do a small group project. Collaborating
with my classmates gradually turned into my usual practice in learning
199
Liberal Studies. (T2)” (Student 1)
“I didn’t like discussion at all; therefore, I seldom expressed my own
ideas. (T1)” “I started to realize that the curriculum was way too broad;
small group work and discussion really helped to make my learning
more efficient by accepting the viewpoints of others. (T2)” (Student 4)
Students in the control group appreciated opportunities to engage in small
group activities and discussions during the lessons. When they gained more
chances to express their ideas, they also learned how to accept the viewpoints of
others. Thus, they began to share ideas and receive input from others. The
explanation of their experiences in learning Liberal Studies demonstrated that the
use of the external style increased among these students.
5.1.2
Changes in Learning Styles of Students in the Experimental
Group
In the experimental group, although students’ use of Type I styles was not
significantly increased, their descriptions of learning in the interview suggested
that they used Type I (the hierarchical and judicial styles) and the external style
increasingly during the semester of the experiment. These findings were more in
line with the hypothesis than those obtained in the quantitative study. The
interview data demonstrated that students’ learning styles were showing a trend
towards Type I styles. The increased use of Type I learning styles was encouraged
by the activity-centered and enquiry-based learning environment, in which the
learning activities and teaching approaches enabled students to learn in a
creativity-generating and intellectually challenging way.
Three changes were commonly shared by students in the experimental group.
First, students changed from working on any of several things (the anarchic style)
to setting priorities for different tasks and missions that they needed to accomplish.
200
This change suggested that students increased their use of the hierarchical
learning style. Second, students changed from reciting all possible information
(the executive style) to analyzing, criticizing, and comprehending information
before using it. This change suggested that students increased their use of the
judicial and liberal styles. Third, students changed from working on an individual
basis (the internal style) to participating in activities in which they could
collaborate with others. This change suggested that students increased their use of
the external learning style. Quotations from interviewees were used to verify their
changes in learning styles during the instruction period.
5.1.2.1
Increased use of the hierarchical style
Half of the interviewees (Students A, B, J, and K) in this group displayed
changes based on increased use of the hierarchical style throughout the semester.
At the beginning and at the end of the semester, interviewees described how they
dealt with the heavy workload in Liberal Studies. A common view came from all
four interviewees. They stated that they paltered with most of their tasks without
considering thoroughly the sequence of doing them. They thought that it was
difficult to manage all the different tasks that appeared at the same time. For
example, they had to remember the facts, read newspapers, search for information,
and work on projects while being critical, analytical, and creative with all of these
tasks. Moreover, the interviewees needed to give time and consideration to their
assignments in other subjects and to their extra-curricular activities. They said that
sometimes they suffered because they had to compete with the demands on their
available time.
At the end of the semester, the interviewees were asked again to describe
how they learned during the instruction period. They agreed that it was an
advantage to set priorities or plans for the multiple tasks and goals they had to
deal with. However, it was equally important to follow the priorities (or plans) and
201
be flexible to switch priorities whenever necessary.
“I preferred to set priorities for the assignments and revisions I had to
accomplish before I started to do them. When I took one thing into
consideration, I neglected the others. Therefore, I couldn’t make a clear
sense of the order in which to do them. (T1)” “By the various practices
over the semester, I gained a good sense of prioritizing different tasks
by order of importance. (T2)” (Student J)
“Frankly speaking, I was too busy to consider being thoughtful about
everything. I used to muddle through different tasks. Therefore, I
switched from one task to another easily, frequently. I am not a
perfectionist. (T1)” “The workload of the subject was far beyond my
expectations. I needed to learn some methods in order to accomplish
effectively the large amount of work. Setting up a work list was really
helpful to get the tasks done. (T2)” (Student A)
In addition, they were surprised that working on multiple tasks in a more
organized way helped them to pay more attention to the concrete details of
different tasks as well as to see them as a whole. This form of assistance worked
well in learning Liberal Studies effectively. The interviewees’ experiences
exemplified their increased use of the hierarchical style.
5.1.2.2
Increased use of the judicial and liberal styles
Most of the interviewees in the experimental group were pleased with their
learning experiences during the instruction period. In line with the prediction,
students reported an increased use of Type I styles. Six interviewees (Student B, C,
E, I, J, and K) became judicial and liberal learners in response to the
enquiry-oriented learning environment. Two students changed from a conservative
202
way of learning at the beginning of the semester to an analytical way of learning
at the end of the semester. The other four changed toward an even more analytical
manner of learning.
Two interviewees (Students B and K) recalled that they learned Liberal
Studies in a traditional way at the beginning of the semester because they did not
have much knowledge of the subject. Their experiences in Liberal Studies were
similar to the norm-conforming ways of teaching that they received in other
traditional subjects. Other interviewees (Student C, E, I, and J) said that they liked
activities in which they could evaluate issues from different materials critically
and interpret them objectively, but they lacked the skills to do them well.
However, after learning Liberal Studies through an issue-enquiry based
environment for one semester, they were more familiar with the skills that were
necessary to collect, compare, and contrast the various sources of information; to
consider all sides of an issue; to weigh the pros and cons; to analyze plots, graphs,
and data; to examine and evaluate all possible viewpoints from colleagues. The
six students indicated that these learning experiences were beneficial to the
development of an analytical mind and multiple perspectives.
“I learned by rote because I considered that Liberal Studies was the
same as other traditional subjects. If I kept reciting all the information
just the same as what I had been doing for years, I believed that I could
have good results. (T1)” “The practice in the Liberal Studies lessons
facilitated my self-learning. I used to search for more relevant
information after school and tried to analyze and interpret it briefly.
(T2) ” (Student B)
“I tried to evaluate and comment on the different viewpoints of my
colleagues. If I had a chance to work on challenging tasks, I learned
more than I did by just sitting and listening to the lecture. (T1)” “The
203
teacher stressed a multiple perspective, critical analysis, and objective
interpretation in the lessons. Therefore, we had more chances to
practice these skills, and consequently, I had confidence in and liked to
use these skills. (T2)” (Student E)
5.1.2.3
Increased use of the external style
All of the interviewees in this group identified features of their learning that
were suggestive of the development of the external style. Interestingly, the
interview data showed that students in both the control and the experimental
groups increased their use of the external style. These findings could be attributed
to the increased use of small group activities in both instructional environments.
As students in the experimental group shared in the interviews, they all
appreciated the learning environment that allowed them to work on collaborative
tasks with their colleagues. Five interviewees (Students D, H, I, J, and K)
described the differences in their learning from the beginning to the end of the
semester.
They described how the teacher incorporated many student-centered,
small-group activities in the lessons from the beginning of the semester, for
instance, inter-group feedback, role play, whole class or group discussion,
presentations, and small group projects. Although students in the experimental
group were still influenced by the deep-rooted, rote-memorizing instructional
strategies that they have been using for many years, the creativity-generating
instructional environment motivated the students to learn in a diverse way. After
the instructional period, students were more accepting of the creativity-generating
instructional environment used in Liberal Studies.
“I learned Liberal Studies independently; it was the same way as I
learned other subjects. I believed that it was more efficient to think
204
thoroughly about an issue or a problem without having to consult
others. (T1)” “I still believed that there was time I had to take my
stand…. I found out that sharing ideas and getting input from others
were more important than working by myself.... You really had to learn
how to work with others in this subject and under an encouraging
atmosphere.(T2)” (Student J)
Apart from the designed activities, the teachers were able to create a
collaborative atmosphere in which students were encouraged to share ideas,
exchange information, and make comments. They expressed the view that they
actually felt themselves changing throughout the semester. They became
externalists, but still had some minor internal orientation.
“I didn’t mind participating in small group activities. I just felt that it
was easier to control the quality of work if I could work out the
assignments by myself. (T1)” “Everyone in the class expressed ideas
and criticized others in a positive manner. We all felt comfortable in
expressing our own ideas and commenting on the viewpoints of others. I
liked to work with others and was trained to work together with others
in a good manner. (T2)” (Student D)
To summarize, the learning styles of interviewees in the control and the
experimental groups changed in the expected directions. Based on the interview
transcripts, interviewees in the control group increased their use of the executive,
conservative, local, and external styles. The external style was classified as Type
III, but the other three styles were classified as Type II, which suggested a
norm-favoring tendency in learning. That is to say, students became more
traditional and norm-conforming in learning. Interviewees in the experimental
205
group increased their use of the hierarchical, judicial, liberal, and external styles.
These results suggested that students’ learning became more creativity-generating
and intellectually challenging. The interview transcripts demonstrated changes in
learning styles among students in both the control and the experimental groups.
These results supported the prediction that learning styles are malleable and can
be changed by learning in different environments.
Reflecting on the whole set of transcripts, the changes in students’ learning
styles in the control and the experimental groups were found to be related to some
specific features of the learning environments. Certain features were established
in the literature as generally encouraging Type I (i.e., creativity-generating) and
Type II (i.e., norm-conforming) learning styles. The influences of the learning
environment on students’ learning styles are discussed in the next chapter.
5.2
Development of Career Interests
Findings from the qualitative data were consistent with those obtained in the
quantitative study regarding career interests. The interview data demonstrated that
students in the experimental group developed a broader range of career interests
than those in the control group. Out of the eight interviewees in the control group,
only two students displayed career motivation in conjunction with Liberal Studies.
However, six of the eight students in the experimental group considered that the
instruction in Liberal Studies was useful for the development of their career
interests. The interview data were analyzed and students were quoted to verify the
development of students’ career interests during the instruction period.
5.2.1
Students in the Control Group
Consistent with the prediction, the majority of the interviewees (Student 1, 2,
3, 5, 7, and 8) in the control group considered that studying Liberal Studies was
not relevant to the development of their career interests. They perceived that the
206
subject was not relevant to their career interests, which had not changed, nor did
they show greater interest in other careers.
Students in this group based their expectations of the instruction in Liberal
Studies curriculum on the applicability of knowledge and skill to their
predetermined future professional roles. They were not able to establish a link
between the knowledge and skills taught in the lessons and their predetermined
career goals; as a result, they perceived that the subject was not able to contribute
toward reaching their desired careers. However, they did not rule out the
importance of learning Liberal Studies on the development of certain careers.
They still believed that Liberal Studies was a useful subject, but that it did not
necessarily make a contribution to the career development of students. Students 1
and 7 expressed his views on the influence of Liberal Studies on students’ career
development.
“I have already made my choice. I want to be a policeman. Although
teachers taught me lot of skills such as criticize, judge, and compare
and contrast, I really don’t think these skills were helpful for me to be a
policeman. Teacher’s teaching tasks and activities were sometimes
interesting, but he couldn’t change my career interests.” (Student 1)
“I want to be a doctor. I don’t think the subject and teacher’s teaching
strategies or activities affected my career interests. Frankly speaking,
the knowledge and skills that I learned in the lessons were irrelevant to
the field of medical industry.” (Student 7)
Student 4 did not expect that learning Liberal Studies would arouse his career
interests or prepare him for a career in a profession; however, he discovered that
he began to think about his future career when they studied certain issues in the
lessons. Although Student 4 had not yet established a distinct career goal for
207
himself, he was clearer about his interest in certain careers.
“I was not interested in a career because I need to take over my
father’s business. However, I am now interested in being a journalist or
something in this field. I thought this change came as a result of the
intensive newspaper reading and individual presentation required in
Liberal Studies. I found out that reading the newspaper and reporting
news in front of classmates were quite interesting.” (Student 4)
Student 4 expressed that he found studying Liberal Studies to be somewhat
important to the development of his career interests. He said that those learning
activities and tasks teachers used in the lesson stimulated him to think over
different kinds of careers. However, the other six students retained their
perception that the Liberal Studies curriculum was irrelevant to their
predetermined career goals, and they did not show broader career interests or
develop new interests during the instruction period.
5.2.2 Students in the Experimental Group
Overall, six of the eight interviewees (Students B, E, G, H, I, J, and K)
responded to the interview by showing a broader range of career interests than the
interviewees in the control group. Two interviewees expressed that they developed
new career interests and four of them said they changed their career goals on
account of learning Liberal Studies. A common characteristic shared by the six
students was the predetermined career goals that they had in mind. They were
clear about their career interests or had already speculated about their future
careers before they began to learn Liberal Studies.
Students in this group expressed satisfaction with the activities and the
content of the lessons in which they learned plentiful knowledge and diverse skills
208
that equipped them to engage in different careers. Students H and J narrated how
Liberal Studies helped to develop their career interests. Student H described that
the subject and the teacher provided opportunities to explore the social and
cultural development of the local community, which gave him insight into the
needs and realities of a fast-changing society. He began to investigate different
types of careers and changed his interests toward the ones in great demand.
“I changed my career interests quite often, especially when I became
conscious of the social values of different careers and tried to think
from the perspectives of different stakeholders that I learned about and
experienced in the lesson. As I learnt more skills and advanced
knowledge, I am more confident in switching my career interests toward
the types that are in great demand in society.” (Student H)
Student J changed her career interests because she developed a deeper
understanding of herself. She described that some issues being discussed during
the Liberal Studies lessons were relevant to students at a personal level. She began
to think deeply about her career interests according to her ability, personality, and
specialty. She realized that she was more suitable to engage in certain kinds of
careers, but not the one in which she had been interested for a long time.
“I learned the uniqueness of the individual, which expanded my
understanding of the similarities and differences between people. I
started to become aware of my strength and weakness in certain aspects,
especially when I participated in discussion and debate. I realized
gradually that I am not suitable to be a lawyer, as I am not a critical
person. However, I changed my career interest to the field of social
science, to be a psychologist, social worker, or etc.” (Student J)
209
Students in the experimental group had a common view of studying Liberal
Studies. In general, they felt that the subject was instructive and interesting, and
they perceived that the materials taught in the class could contribute them toward
reaching their career goals. Students F and I had stable career goals and indicated
that the necessary skills and knowledge learned in the lessons were applicable to
their future careers.
“I decided to be an engineer and I do not think I will switch my career
goals because of the new learning experiences that I found in Liberal
Studies. However, I learned to evaluate issues from a variety of
perspectives and to analyze information in an objective way; these skills
were relevant to the development of my future career.” (Student F)
Interviewees’ descriptions of learning Liberal Studies during the instruction
period suggested that they changed their career goals or showed greater interest in
other careers. They appreciated the knowledge and skills they learned in the
Liberal Studies lessons, which were useful for studying other subjects and for
their future careers. They were also satisfied with the Liberal Studies curriculum
and teachers’ instruction in which they captured useful information and materials
that were beneficial to reaching their career goals.
To summarize, the results obtained from the qualitative findings regarding
career interests were consistent with the quantitative findings. Students in the
experimental group showed broader career interests than those students in the
control group after the instruction period. Based on the whole set of interview data,
the interviewees in the control group retained their predetermined career interests.
Because of the use of creativity-generating teaching strategies and learning
activities in the experimental group, the interviewees in this group changed or
developed new career interests after the instruction period. Another difference was
210
that students in the control group perceived that the Liberal Studies class was
irrelevant to the development of their career interests; however, students in the
experimental group thought that the knowledge and skills acquired in the subject
were beneficial to reaching their future career goals or helping them to clarify
their real interests in a career.
The fact that students in the two groups developed their career interests in
different directions suggests that teachers’ teaching styles in constructing a
learning environment might not only influence students’ development of certain
types of learning styles, but also affect the development of their career interests.
An integrated discussion of the quantitative and qualitative results will be
presented in Chapter 6.
211
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
A widely researched construct, intellectual styles, was used to conceptualize
the process of teaching and learning in this research. To apply the notion of
intellectual styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006) to education, a prerequisite is to
understand the nature of intellectual styles and how intellectual styles affect the
teaching and learning processes. Therefore, the principal objective of this research
was to investigate two long-lasting issues regarding the nature of intellectual
styles. Specifically, the research investigated the issue of style value (whether or
not styles are value-laden) and the issue of style malleability (whether or not
styles are modifiable). Moreover, the research examined the impact of teaching
styles on students’ learning styles and on their career interests.
To gain an in-depth understanding of the nature of intellectual styles, four
studies: a pilot study, an exploratory study (Study One), an experimental study
(Study Two), and individual interviews (Study Three) were designed and
conducted. The pilot and the first study were conducted to investigate whether or
not styles are value-laden. In particular, these studies investigated students’
preferences for their teachers’ teaching styles and teachers’ preferences for their
students’ learning styles. Findings from these studies provided incremental
evidence to corroborate that styles are value-laden and that both students and
teachers preferred Type I styles.
Based on the results obtained in the pilot study and Study One, an
experimental study was designed and conducted to examine whether or not
intellectual styles are malleable. Taking into account the possible confounding
effects of students’ demographic characteristics, this study examined the impact of
teachers’ teaching styles (in creating creativity-generating and traditional
instructional environments) on students’ learning and development, in particular,
students’ development of particular types of learning styles and career interests. A
212
qualitative study (Study Three: Individual Interviews) was conducted subsequent
to the experimental study (Study Two), to cross validate the quantitative results
and to collect information on how students developed specific types of learning
styles and career interests during the instruction period.
As reported in Chapter 4 (results of the quantitative findings) and Chapter 5
(results of the qualitative findings), in general, students who learned in the
creativity-generating
instructional
environment
(the
experimental
group)
decreased their use of Type II learning styles (norm-conforming) followed by a
delayed increase in Type I learning styles (creativity-generating). Students in this
group also developed a wider range of career interests. In contrast, students who
learned in the traditional instructional environment (the control group) increased
their use of Type II learning styles and maintained their career interests. These
results provided evidence to support that styles are malleable and that students can
develop specific types of learning styles and career interests after learning in
different instructional environments for one semester.
Research on intellectual styles in education has been highly active over the
past two decades. One of the motives for conducting research on styles in
educational settings is to determine whether or not intellectual styles matter
significantly in teaching and learning, and ultimately, to enhance the quality and
effectiveness of education. This research is helpful in understanding the nature of
intellectual styles and their influences on students’ learning and development. In
accordance with the three research questions, this chapter focuses the discussion
on findings in the present research as well as those in the literature. This chapter
discusses: (a) Are intellectual styles value-laden? (b) Are intellectual styles
malleable? (c) Do intellectual styles contribute to students’ development of career
interests? (d) Continuous development of students’ Type I learning styles and a
wider range of career interests.
213
6.1
Are Thinking Styles Value-laden?
Teachers and students may, or often do, respond favorably to certain teaching
or learning styles. Evidence from the research literature has shown that teachers’
and students’ preferences for specific styles are determined or affected by personal
and contextual variables (Ayati, Ataran, & Mehrmohamadi, 2001; Khangaghi &
Rajaei, 2011; Renzulli & Sullivan, 2009; Serife, 2008) such as gender, culture,
instructional environment, and assessment system. There is a general consensus
that the instructional environment is one of the most important variables affecting
students’ learning and development (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1992; Serife, 2008;
Sternberg, 1997). To understand teachers’ and students’ preferences for teaching
and learning styles, it is beneficial to create an instructional environment that can
increase students’ interest, enjoyment, and achievement in learning as well as
encourage them to use particular styles in learning. This section discusses
specifically the issue of style value and focuses on different preferences for
intellectual styles in school. The two sub-sections focus the discussion on (a)
teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles and (b) students’ preferences for
teachers’ teaching styles.
6.1.1
Teachers’ Preferences for Students’ Learning Styles
The pilot study and Study One investigated secondary school teachers’
preferences for students’ learning styles. The data analyses of these two studies
revealed that the results of the present research replicated the pattern of teachers’
preferences for their students to use Type I learning styles found in Zhang, Fu, and
Jiao (2008). As expected, teachers from both studies scored higher on Type I
styles (i.e., the judicial, legislative, hierarchical, and liberal styles) and the
external style than on Type II styles (i.e., the executive, monarchical, and
conservative styles) and the internal style. The results of these studies indicated
that teachers preferred their students to use creativity-generating and collaborative
214
types of styles in learning. In addition, it was observed in Western culture that
teachers’ preferences for Type I styles in learning were related to their designs of
instructional environments. Many experimental studies in the United States have
been designed to develop students’ Type I styles but not their Type II styles
(Goldsmith & Kerr, 1991; Gordon & Debus, 2002; Murdock, Isaksen, & Lauer,
1993; Tang, 1994). Their designs of instructional environments showed their
preferences for students to learn in a creative, challenging, and interactive way.
However, an unexpected finding was obtained in Study One of the present
research. Results showed that teachers had a higher preference for students to use
the local style than the global style. This finding indicated that teachers preferred
their students to work with details and pay attention to concrete facts. As findings
from previous studies have shown, the use of the local style is beneficial for
acquiring basic knowledge and is associated with high academic achievement
(Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Sun, 2000; Zhang, 2001a, 2002e, 2007c, 2008),
especially for those traditional subjects that require students to read, memorize,
and recite. Students have to acquire basic knowledge and skills to develop
advanced knowledge and skills at a higher cognitive level (Fan, et al., 2010).
Therefore, the teachers’ higher preference for students to use the local learning
style made sense in the case of this study.
Hong Kong has been ruled by an exam-oriented education system for many
decades. In this education system, one of the ultimate goals for most teachers and
students is to achieve good grades on examinations. It is possible that teachers
expect their students to employ the local learning style, which might help them to
acquire knowledge and skills that are prerequisites for learning advanced
knowledge, developing complex learning styles, and attaining good examination
results.
In addition, teachers’ preferences for students to use the local learning style
might be influenced by pressure from the school’s reward system. The class
215
observation data in Study Two of this research revealed teachers’ difficulties in
using Type I styles in teaching. During the class observation, two teachers from
the experimental group mentioned that their teaching performance was not
assessed by how well they teach, but by how well students perform in public
examinations. They receive a positive assessment if students achieve good results
in examinations. Therefore, they have to teach in close adherence with educational
policies, assessment strategies, and the prescribed curriculum from the
government to ensure that students have learned sufficient knowledge to obtain
good results. Thus, pressure from the school’s reward system might force teachers
to design and conduct their teaching in a concrete, detailed way to produce high
achievers, which might further reinforce their preferences for students to use the
local style.
6.1.2
Students’ Preferences for Teachers’ Teaching Styles
In the first study of the present research, results obtained in the student
sample were similar to those obtained in the teacher sample. Students preferred
their teachers to use Type I teaching styles more than Type II styles. These results
not only fully supported the hypothesis, but also confirmed the findings of
previous studies by other researchers. For example, Betoret (2007) and Zhang and
colleagues Zhang, 2004e, 2008; Zhang, et al., 2005) conducted a series of studies
that investigated students’ preferences for their teachers’ teaching styles. Results
from these studies consistently indicated that students had a strong preference for
their teachers to use Type I teaching styles. Theoretically, the use of these
creativity-generating styles encourages students to think creatively, critically, and
innovatively, as well as to make inferences and judgments (Segers, Dochy, &
Cascallar, 2003). This preference was the same across cultures (i.e., Hong Kong,
Beijing, Spain, and the United States) and educational levels (Bernardo, et al.,
2002).
216
Consistent with the findings obtained in the teacher sample, the scale mean
for the local style obtained in the student sample was higher than for two Type I
styles, the legislative and judicial styles, which demonstrated that students had a
strong preference for teachers to organize activities and tasks that provided them
with opportunities to work with concrete details. Besides the reasons discussed in
6.1.1, Zhang (2006a) found that students’ preferences for the local teaching style
was significantly related to the integrative mode of thinking and other Type I
teaching styles. Thus, it is possible that the use of the local style together with
Type I styles is potentially more conducive to the development of an integrative
mode of thinking, in which both sides of the brain are stimulated and used. This
mode of thinking encourages students to think in a creative and synthesized
manner without ignoring the importance of learning concrete information that is
necessary for acquiring advanced knowledge and achieving good examination
results.
Students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles also reflected their
expectations for the types of instructional environments created by teachers
(Cakmak, 2011). Without the support of teaching that encourages Type I learning
styles, students could not use these styles in learning. The interview data in Study
Three of this research articulated students’ preferences for teachers to create an
instructional environment that is active, open, interactive, creativity-generating,
and stimulating, and in which students have opportunities to interact with one
another, exchange ideas, learn to appreciate the viewpoints of others, and evaluate
issues from different perspectives.
Students in both the control and the experimental groups expressed their
preferences for learning creatively and actively. They appreciated the
opportunities to act in role plays and skits. As teachers designed the context and
dialogue for these activities, students were able to think innovatively, consider
issues thoroughly beyond the facts, and become engaged in in-depth
217
understanding of concrete materials. Students liked brainstorming and drawing
mind-maps. Students found that these activities were not only useful to broaden
their thinking patterns, but also beneficial to their divergent thinking.
Problem-solving games were not commonly used during instruction; however, by
developing
solutions
to
some
challenging
open-ended
problems
and
circumstances, students learned how to make use of knowledge and skills gained
in the lesson and to apply them to solving the problems. One student in the
experimental group expressed: “We were not just playing a game or participating
in an activity; instead, we were learning through these games and activities, both
knowledge and skills. The knowledge and skills developed in one activity always
led us to understand another area of study.”
In summary, results from the present research provided strong support to the
contention that styles are value-laden in that students and teachers generally prefer
each other to use Type I styles in teaching and learning. Findings of the present
research also justified the design of an experimental study that aimed at
developing students’ Type I learning styles by creating a creativity-generating
instructional environment. In this instructional environment, students were
encouraged and provided with opportunities to use Type I styles in learning. This
experimental study further examined the issue of style malleability, to determine if
styles can be changed through instruction.
6.2
Are Intellectual Styles Malleable?
Researchers have employed the notion of intellectual styles to identify the
many different ways that styles matter significantly in education. One of the
important issues in the field of styles is to investigate if styles are modifiable. If
styles are not modifiable, students might fail to adapt themselves to the stylistic
demands of different educational systems or instructional environments. Thus, the
success of their academic achievement and career development would be limited.
218
This section focuses the discussion on the issue of style malleability
regarding the nature of intellectual styles, to investigate whether styles are stable
over time or they are malleable. The following sub-sections examine whether or
not (a) intellectual styles are generally stable over time, (b) intellectual styles are
malleable under the stylistic demands of instructional environments, and (c) the
development of learning styles are socialized by the demographic characteristics
of students.
6.2.1
Intellectual Styles Are Generally Stable Over Time
Findings from Study Two of the present study showed (Table 4.8) that the
test-retest reliabilities in the experimental group were from .39 to .59, indicating
that styles were not stable over the semester. However, evidence from the
qualitative data obtained in Study Three suggested that students’ learning styles
were subsequently maintained throughout the instructional period. Changes in
learning styles were found two months after the first semester concluded. This
pattern of changes in learning styles that occurred in the experimental group
suggested that styles were relatively stable; in the case of this study, styles were
stable over a 6-month semester. It was found that students in the experimental
group did not significantly increase or decrease their use of either Type I or Type
II learning styles. These results are comparable with those obtained in Clapp’s
(1993) and Taylor’s (1994) studies. They found that students’ intellectual styles
were stable over a period of ten weeks or even a few years.
One reasonable explanation for the stability of styles might be that students
did not perceive a need to change their styles. Zhang and Sternberg (2006)
illustrated that people choose styles with which they feel comfortable in managing
their activities. On the one hand, individuals might change their styles to adapt to
the stylistic demands of a given circumstance if they decide that their use of styles
is no longer appropriate for dealing with the demands. On the other hand,
219
individuals might retain their current styles if they feel confident that their styles
are still fulfilling the demands of the environment. Students in the latter case
might not easily perceive a need to change their styles. Students in the
experimental group of the present research resembled students in the latter case;
they might not have felt threatened by the changing educational system. They
believed that their habitual ways of learning would be suitable for dealing with the
stylistic demands of the new environments, and therefore they did not change
their styles.
However, people do not always have the luxury of being in a stable
environment that always matches their preferred ways of managing different tasks
or solving difficult problems (Sternberg, 1997). On some occasions, students may
find that their styles do not match their ability or the demands of the environment
(e.g., the examination system). They also might discover that their use of styles
does not meet their teachers’ or parents’ expectations. Therefore, students cannot
always be comfortable with their styles across the life span. Students may change
their styles, consciously or unconsciously and with varying degrees of flexibility,
to better match life’s demands when such changes are perceived (Jablokow &
Kirton, 2009; Kirton, 2003).
As the above discussion suggests, styles have substantial stability over time;
however, students have the opportunity to change their styles when they are no
longer in a stable situation. When synthesized with the interview data of the
present research (Study Three), much of the information showed that students
chose to change or retain their learning styles for specific reasons. These reasons
can be described as the stimulus for a change in styles, enabling students to
perceive a need to change their styles. Without this stimulus, students might not
seek a style change. In the case of this study, it was found that academic
achievement was a common, potent stimulus to bring about changes in styles.
Students claimed that they chose to change their styles because they wanted better
220
results on examinations.
Each educational system has its own rewards (Sternberg, 1997; Zhang &
Sternberg, 2006). In practice, it has been observed that most teaching and learning
activities are planned to fit into the demands of this system. Possibly, when a
system changes, the original, predominant styles that were valued in the old
system may not be valued in the new one. Students in the present research were
the pioneers of educational reform in Hong Kong because they were confronted
with this complicated situation. As they expressed, the conforming, traditional
ways of learning that they had been using for years in the previous
examination-oriented system functioned poorly under the circumstances of reform.
During the reform, students were being encouraged to learn in a totally different
way. On the one hand, students and teachers had been influenced by the previous
norm-favoring examination-oriented educational system, in which students were
encouraged to learn conservatively to attain high grades; on the other hand,
students were also inspired by the freedom, creativity, and diversity advocated by
the reform. Student B in the experimental group stated: “Examination scores
dominate my learning; I will try my best to adjust my styles of learning as it is
required. In this semester, it was so obvious that my learning did less well than
before. I have to change my styles in order to improve my results.” Similarly,
students in the control group confronted the same challenges, as Student 5
expressed: “Getting good grades in examination is everything for me; I will do
anything to keep my bright results. It seems to me that the traditional styles of
learning failed to satisfy with getting good grades in the new system. I have to
change because such a change is required. Actually, I don’t have a choice.” In
addition, there were at least six interviewees who asserted that they would try
their very best to change their learning styles (or everything they could do) until
they attained satisfactory, consistent results in their examinations.
221
Before the reform was launched, students were satisfied with the styles that
they had been using for a long time. However, stimulated by the current
educational reform, students perceived a change in learning styles was needed. As
noted by Kirton (2003), students can temporarily deviate from their fixed
preferences and shift their preferences in response to the stimulus. When the
stimulus is established, a new pattern will be temporarily fixed and resistant to
change unless another need is observed. In this research, the strong challenge of
examinations stimulated students to shift their current styles to adapt to the
demands of the new educational system.
In summary, as the above discussion suggested and the data presented, styles
were stable over time. Findings from Study Three further suggested that change
was possible; a stimulus was needed to initiate a change. Based on the interview
data obtained in Study Three and discussed previously, a possible and important
way to motivate a change of styles is through teaching and training. As mentioned
by students who participated in Study Three of the present research, teachers’
design of an instructional environment can be a potent process to supervise
change. As Renzulli and Sullivan (2009) suggested, students may embrace
different styles when they are placed in different instructional environments. The
following sub-section discusses how teachers can design instructional
environments that influence students’ learning styles.
6.2.2
Intellectual Styles Are Malleable Under the Stylistic Demands
of Instructional Environments
Although styles are stable over time, individuals are still flexible in
modifying their styles when a stimulus is perceived to initiate a change. In
education, there is a general consensus that the assessment system is a potent
stimulus to initiate a style change. That is to say, students shift their intellectual
styles in learning based on how they are being assessed (Scouller, 1996; Scouller
222
& Prosser, 1994). The instructional environment is one of the possible ways to
change students’ styles from one type to another to improve their academic
performance (Eskadari & Salehi, 2009; Serife, 2008). Researchers have attempted
to modify, design, or redesign instructional environments to encourage students’
development of particular intellectual styles that suit the assessment demands of a
course (Newble & Jaeger, 1983; Peterson, Rayner, & Armstrong, 2009; Ramsden,
1979; Scouller & Prosser, 1994; Tang, 1994; Thomas & Bain, 1984; Wilson &
Fowler, 2005). Results of these studies demonstrated that students adjusted their
predominant styles to adapt to the stylistic patterns of the assessment system
through learning in different instructional environments. Students had to change
their habitual strategies to confront various challenges in the assessment system so
as to achieve better academic results.
In line with the aforementioned studies, results obtained in Study Two of this
research showed that students increased or decreased their use of particular styles
by interacting with two types of instructional environments: one was
creativity-generating (favoring Type I learning styles) and the other was
traditional (favoring Type II learning styles). The creativity-generating
instructional environment was designed based on students’ and teachers’
preferences for learning styles as well as on the demands of the newly developed
assessment system. The following two sub-sections discuss the effect of
instructional
environments
on
students’
learning
styles:
(a)
the
creativity-generating instructional environment dominated by Type I styles (the
experimental group) and (b) the traditional instructional environment dominated
by Type II styles (the control group).
223
6.2.2.1
The creativity-generating instructional environment dominated by Type
I styles (experimental group)
Intellectual styles are unlikely to change within a short period of time (Serife,
2008). However, many researchers have suggested that students’ intellectual styles
can change gradually over time when they learn in an appropriate instructional
environment. In the present research (Study Two), teachers in the experimental
group were trained to design a creativity-generating instructional environment that
corresponded to the new assessment system and was based on the results from the
pilot study and Study One of the present research. The main goal of constructing
this instructional environment was to allow students to learn in a
creativity-generating way, which encouraged them to use more Type I learning
styles (i.e., the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles) in
understanding the materials. With the main goal of increasing students’ use of
Type I learning styles; it was important to provide students with numerous
opportunities to utilize these styles in learning. In accordance with the concepts of
thinking styles in the literature (Sternberg, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006),
teachers in the experimental group designed instructional environments that had a
low degree of structure and a high degree of cognitive complexity, nonconformity,
and autonomy. As shown in the anecdotal data (class observations and interviews),
the instructional environment in the experimental group was predominantly
innovative, active, interactive, and heuristic, which provided students with
opportunities (a) to work on tasks that encouraged their critical, exploratory, and
creative thinking and (b) to express their thoughts and ideas.
After learning in the creativity-generating instructional environment for one
semester, students were expected to use more Type I learning styles. However, as
Table 4.15 shows, the scale mean of the legislative style decreased significantly
and the mean average of Type I styles was maintained throughout the instruction
period. However, when the mean scores of Type I and Type II styles between
224
students in the control and the experimental groups (presented in Tables 4.12 and
4.13) were compared, students in the experimental group had, at the pre-test, a
significantly higher mean score for Type II learning styles (i.e., the executive,
monarchical, local, and conservative styles) than students in the control group. At
the time of post-test, the differences between the two groups were insignificant.
These results suggest that a creativity-generating instructional environment
discouraged students in the experimental group from using Type II learning styles.
Although the creativity-generating instructional environment did not
successfully encourage students to use more Type I styles based on the statistical
analysis, the changes in students’ learning styles over time were reflected in the
interview data (presented in Section 5.1.2) obtained two months after the post-test.
In the interviews, students’ descriptions of their learning experiences
demonstrated that students’ learning styles underwent adaptive changes in the
predicted direction. Students increased their use of Type I styles (the hierarchical
and judicial styles) and the external styles at the end of semester. Therefore, it is
possible that their use of Type I learning styles increased under the conditions of
learning in the creativity-generating instructional environment over a prolonged
period.
The anecdotal data collected from class observations and interviews of the
present research did not contradict the statistical data; in fact, the qualitative data
made the results concerning the changes in students learning styles more
accessible and understandable. With the addition of these qualitative data, the
researcher was confident to infer that students’ learning styles were showing a
trend towards Type I styles as hypothesized. First, the creativity-generating
learning environment inhibited students’ use of Type II learning styles during the
instruction period. After a prolonged period of practicing Type I learning styles,
students tended to show more characteristics of using Type I styles during the
interviews. With the quantitative and qualitative findings taken together, these
225
results are highly comparable to those of existing research.
For example, in the study by Gordon and Debus (2002), students were
instructed to use Type I intellectual styles in a portfolio-based instructional
environment. Findings noted an increased use of Type I intellectual styles among
students after their use of Type II intellectual styles decreased. This pattern of
learning style development was also demonstrated by other researcher (Ramsden,
1992; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991), which suggested that a delayed gain in Type I
intellectual styles followed an initial reduction in Type II styles. The results of the
aforementioned studies and the present study demonstrate that intellectual styles
are malleable. However, a delay effect might observe, the effect might not occur
immediately following changes in the instructional environment.
Although students’ learning styles might adapt consciously or unconsciously
to the stylistic demands of the assessment system (Chen, et al., 2011; Fan, et al.,
2010; Tang, 2009), the interview data from Study Three of this research and the
review of literature did point to some difficulties with promoting the use of Type I
styles. These difficulties might be related to the restructuring of the assessment
system in the current educational reform in Hong Kong. A focus of the reform is
to discourage students from simply rote memorizing and to develop their
higher-order thinking skills, so that they will become critical thinkers,
independent problem solvers, and lifelong learners (D. Watkins, 2004). Based on
the interview data from the third study of this research, at least three difficulties
were noted.
First, the adoption of Type I styles were affected by students’ perceptions of
successful experiences on examinations. Students in the experimental group
preferred styles that would enhance their performance on examinations. Although
students realized that the instructional environment was able to develop their
higher-order thinking skills that were needed in the new assessment system,
without previous experience in using the creativity-generating styles for learning,
226
students did not feel confident that they would obtain high grades in their
examinations. On the one hand, students said in the interviews that they would try
different methods to attain better examination results; on the other hand, they
indicated that they had not yet proven that Type I styles were beneficial to their
learning. It seems that their early successful experiences in using the
norm-conforming styles motivated them to retain their use of those styles.
A similar situation was replicated by Nijhuis et al. (2005) and Segers et al.
(2006), who attempted to increase the use of Type I intellectual styles among 312
university
students
by
changing
the
instructional
environment
from
assignment-based learning to problem-based learning. In contrast to the authors’
expectations, the results indicated that students from the problem-based learning
group failed to use more Type I intellectual styles after one academic year. They
reported that one of the reasons for this result was that students continued to be
influenced by their successful experiences in the rote-memorizing environment. It
appears that students in the present study and in Nijhuis et al.’s study preferred to
rely on using intellectual styles with which they were confident of experiencing
success (Zeegers, 2001) and hesitated to use Type I styles with which they could
not predict their performance on examinations.
Second, the problem of time constraints prevented students from adopting
Type I styles of learning. Although teachers made an effort to develop students’
learning with the creativity-generating types of learning styles, teachers’ attempts
to implement the newly developed instructional environments were sometimes
impeded by the rigidly prescribed curriculum launched by the government
education department. In the present research, the curriculum (Liberal Studies)
from the education department required students to learn higher-order thinking
skills to deal with problem-solving, analyzing, evaluating, and applying skills and
knowledge across various areas of study (e.g., self and personal development,
society and culture, science, technology, and environment). Students in the
227
experimental group reported that they were pressured by time constraints to learn
a broad curriculum with substantial amounts of content materials, and to complete
diverse kinds of homework assignments within a short period of time. They
perceived that the new environment was interesting and stimulating; however,
they noted that it was really challenging for them to think in the
creativity-generating way that teachers expected. They sometimes felt themselves
incapable of managing their time effectively and ended up rushing their
assignments and assessments.
It appears that students who study in this type of time-pressured environment
are anxious about taking the risk of investing time in practicing those
less-developed skills and using an unfamiliar style of learning (Case & Gunstone,
2002; Kember, 2004; Struyven, et al., 2006; Thomson & Falchikov, 1998). Even
when the instructional environment was varied and was keyed to students’
assessment preferences, without proper practice using the creativity-generating
styles, students found it hard to develop their preferences in using those styles in
authentic situations (Chen, et al., 2011; Sternberg, 1997). For example, Gordon
and Debus (2002) reported the same situation as in the present study; because of
time constraints, students in the experimental group did not increase their use of
Type I intellectual styles in learning. As the above discussion and previous
findings suggest, students’ perceptions of time constraints, heavy workloads, and
test anxiety may have deterred them from employing more creativity-generating
types of learning styles (Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Lizzo, Wilson, & Simons, 2002;
Struyven, et al., 2006; Zeegers, 2001).
Third, students faced a dilemma when they were exposed to the cutting edge
of educational reform. The old system encouraged students to use Type II learning
styles rather than Type I. In contrast, students in the new system were being
encouraged to use Type I learning styles but not Type II styles. Based on the
qualitative data collected from the class observations in this study, teachers
228
provided considerable stimulation and freedom for students through various
experiential activities such as role playing and acting in dramas about
contemporary issues around them. These activities aimed to provide students with
many opportunities to self-direct their learning, assume roles, take the
perspectives of different stakeholders, make decisions, and confront challenges
that appear in the real world. Although these activities were reported in literature
to be capable of inducing students’ creativity-generating styles (Khangaghi &
Rajaei, 2011; Mitsis & Foley, 2009; Nijhuis, et al., 2005; Renzulli & Sullivan,
2009; Sternberg, 1997), some students did not perceive these tasks in the same
ways as the researchers and teachers.
Surprisingly, students expressed feelings of uncertainty about their lessons.
Some expressed their concern that they had not learned enough content materials
and facts that were necessary to attain good results in their examinations. Others
noted that they sometimes lacked confidence about having learned the correct
concepts and relevant materials that were required in the examinations. Student G
stated: “I enjoyed the lesson so much and you will never feel bored in the class. It
is really stimulating. However, the examination system is cruel to us; it did not
count how much effort you put in your study, but how well you perform on the
examination. I am always eager to learn more contents and in a greater depth.”
Students were coincidentally inspired by the creativity-generating instructional
environment and influenced by the deeply rooted rote-learning instructional
environment. This dilemma seemed to deter students’ development of Type I
learning styles. In particular, it might also be the main factor to explain why
students decreased their use of the legislative style.
Teachers in the experimental group infused various creative elements into the
instructional designs; however, students were not fully motivated to use Type I
learning styles during their first semester in high school (the same year that the
educational reform was launched). After being taught in the traditional
229
instructional environment for many years, it was typical that students entered high
school using predominantly Type II styles. In addition, during the first semester of
study, students were captured by exposure to a broad array of creative and
educational experiences. They were not equipped to master the necessary skills
and knowledge in handling multiple tasks simultaneously. Therefore, it is
understandable why students did not increase their use of Type I learning styles.
However, throughout the instruction period, teachers provided increasing
experiences for participating in learning tasks that focused on the use of higher
order thinking skills and advanced learning materials. Students had greater
involvement in tasks that encouraged Type I styles and the progressive mastery of
higher order thinking skills. They could not readily rely on their habitual ways of
handling the tasks, and thus, they were pushed to use Type I styles more
frequently in learning. In addition, reducing the use of Type II learning styles
contributed to increasing the use of Type I styles. Therefore, in the direction that
was predicted in this study, it was not surprising that students showed more
distinctive characteristics of using Type I styles during the interviews.
Changes in students’ learning styles in a creativity-generating instructional
environment were substantial and worthy of attention. Based on this trend, the
researcher can reasonably predict that through the design of creativity-generating
instructional environments, students are able to develop Type I learning styles.
However, this positive effect might be observed only if students learn in such an
environment over a long time interval. In addition, changes in students’ learning
styles as a consequence of the course on instructional environment were not
restricted to the experimental group; changes in styles were also noted in the
control group where students learned in a traditional environment.
230
6.2.2.2
The traditional instructional environment dominated by Type II styles
(control group)
Teachers in the control group were expected to create instructional
environments according to their habitual practice. The quantitative data (presented
in 5.1.1) showed that students in the control group were largely instructed in a
traditional environment in which teachers’ instructional designs were dominated
by rote memorization, drill, and recitation. Consistent with Sternberg’s (1997) and
Zhang and Sternberg’s (2005, 2006) suggestions, teachers in this group designed
instructional environments with a relatively high degree of structure, conformity,
and authority. This kind instructional environment was valued highly by the
examination-oriented educational system in Hong Kong, which remained
unshakable for many decades (Watkins, 2004).
After learning in the traditional instructional environment for one semester,
students in the control group were expected to retain or use more Type II learning
styles. As shown in Table 4.14, two significant results were obtained. First,
students increased their use of one Type I style (the liberal style), which was
expected to decline after the instruction period. Second, the mean average of Type
II styles increased significantly from the pre-test to the post-test, indicating that
within the traditional instructional environment, it was possible to encourage
students’ development of Type II learning styles. Consistent findings were also
obtained in Study Three; students demonstrated more distinctive characteristics of
using Type II styles (i.e., the executive and conservative styles) during the
interview. The quantitative and qualitative findings strongly supported the
hypothesis that styles are malleable. The traditional instructional environment
encouraged students to use more Type II learning styles. To achieve a
comprehensive understanding of why students in the control group changed their
learning styles towards the liberal style and Type II styles, an extensive review of
previous research and the data analyses of Study Three are discussed.
231
The increased use of the liberal style. Theoretically, students in a traditional
instructional environment are expected to adhere to existing procedures and
standard ways of dealing with learning tasks, which facilitate their development of
the conservative style. However, inconsistent with the hypothesis, the results of
this study suggested that the traditional environment actually might have
facilitated students’ development of the liberal style. The findings obtained in this
study were in line with previous research conducted by Fan (2006) and Newble
and Clarke (1986). Fan compared the effects of traditional and hypermedia
instructional environments on changes in learning styles among students. Results
of his study showed that students in the traditional environment coincidently
increased their use of Type I (i.e., the hierarchical style) and Type II styles.
To satisfy the demands of the newly implemented assessment system
launched through the educational reform, it was not surprising that some strategies
of active learning (i.e., small group projects and discussions) were also discovered
within the traditional instructional environment of the present study. Based on the
analysis of the interview data of the present research, the Liberal Studies lessons
were basically dominated by direct teaching of key concepts and contents, and, on
occasion,
teachers
included
small-group
activities
that
carried
some
creativity-generating features. To some extent, students were allowed to
participate in discussions, debates, presentations, or various kinds of activities.
These activities were also described in the previous sub-section as capable of
developing students’ Type I learning styles. These opportunities for students to
engage in various kinds of activities might have encouraged their use of the liberal
style. Generally speaking, most of the students showed an interest in engaging in
the aforementioned activities. Students valued the opportunity to interact with
other students, to exchange ideas, to think outside the boundaries, and to look at
situations or problems from a new perspective. Student 2 expressed: “We
treasured the chance to discuss different issues in groups, or sometimes, teacher
232
opened the discussion to the whole class, so that we could exchange ideas and
make comments on students’ points of views.”
Although the students in the traditional environment were provided with
some opportunities to learn in a creativity-generating way, the interview data
(collected two months after the post-test data) in this study did not show any
features that suggested an increased use of the liberal style among these students.
The contradictory results obtained in the quantitative and qualitative analyses
were consistent with Fan’s (2006) findings. He suggested that the novelty effect
might shift students between Type I and Type II learning styles to suit the
demands of the instructional environment. In the case of the present study, the
novelty effect of the innovative tasks (e.g., using mind maps and engaging in
discussions) that were newly added to the traditional instructional environment
might encourage students to use the liberal style more frequently. However, when
students found that these learning tasks did not fulfill their wishes (i.e., enhance
their academic results), they might readjust to learning in a traditional way. In
addition, students claimed that whether or not they would increase their use of the
creativity-generating styles in learning was dependent not only on the activities
and tasks, but also on the ways in which these activities and tasks were delivered.
It seems that teachers’ approaches to teaching were another factor detrimental to
students’ development of the liberal styles. As Students 3 and 7 described,
teachers normally instructed in a traditional way that made the meaningful
activities ineffective for students’ development of Type I learning styles. Students
were required to follow similar directions and procedures repeatedly during the
activities.
“Although we had discussion almost every lesson, teacher taught in a
very structured way. We stayed in the same group and discussed with
the same group of people as well as followed the same procedures of
233
discussion all year without any change.” (Student 3)
“We called in questions and made objections to teacher’s points of
views; he got used to dismissing our ideas with a laugh. In the course of
time, we tried not to comment on the teacher’s ideas and just followed
his directions. In addition, he did not validate the content of our
discussion and might not give us further feedback.” (Students 7)
As reflected in some empirical and experimental studies (Chen, et al., 2011;
Ruscio & Amabile, 1999), students tended to learn in a creativity-generating way
in a heuristic instructional environment, whereas students in a traditional
environment tended to learn in a norm-conforming way. In the case of this study,
it seems that students were not sufficiently motivated to use Type I styles (i.e., the
liberal style) in a traditional instructional environment by teachers’ structured
ways of teaching. Students have difficulty developing certain types of styles if
they are not sufficiently motivated to learn in those styles (Sambell, McDowell, &
Brown, 1997). Therefore, at the time of the interview, students did not show any
features of using the liberal style. To fully motivate students to employ a
particular style, it seems that not only teachers’ instructional designs were
important but also how the designs were actually delivered to students.
The increased use of Type II styles. Although some creative elements were
added to instructional designs after the inception of educational reform, and these
elements significantly increased the use of the liberal style among students in the
control group, this traditional environment was still highly teacher-centered,
which favored the use of or increased the use of Type II learning styles among
students. Based on the whole set of interview data, the researcher identified two
factors that might have contributed to the increased use of Type II learning styles
among students in the control group. One such factor was that teachers primarily
used direct teaching, drill, and recitation; the other was that students were
234
overloaded by large numbers of assignments.
First, teachers in the control group designed a traditional instructional
environment that primarily used direct teaching, drills, and recitation. These
instructional methods had been well-known in literature as effective methods for
teaching contents considered to be fundamental and as conducive for the
development of students’ Type II learning styles (Renzulli & Sullivan, 2009;
Sternberg, 1997). Students in the control group reported that the lessons were
sometimes dominated by explaining concrete information and identifying the key
concepts that teachers were trying to teach. Teachers assigned substantial
materials and left students to work them out on their own. More important,
teachers ignored such skills as analysis, critical thinking, and synthesis, which are
required in the curriculum. The students commented that the didactic way of
teaching and learning was uninspiring and boring.
“Teacher explained all the information in great detail, most of this
information was provided to us with good ideas in the discussion.
Occasionally, teacher saved some room for us to think over the
information and combine them in an organized way. However, he did
not tell us how to analyze or organize the information. Only those
students with good academic results knew how to do it.” (Students 3)
“To be frank, except that we had role play or watched a video once in a
while, teacher followed all the sequences and instructions from the
textbook. I can only say the lesson was boring.” (Student 4)
Although students did not find the traditional environment inspiring and
enjoyable, most of the students agreed that direct teaching made their studies
easier. They found that the traditional instructional environment was practical and
useful, which allowed them to grasp rich details and content. They believed that
235
the repeated drilling and recitation were essential and effective methods for
teaching information that was considered to be foundational to higher level
learning. This basic knowledge and facts were important for attaining good results
in examinations. These perspectives were also described by Dahlin and Watkins
(2000), who found that senior students who used Type II intellectual styles in
learning believed that rote-learning and memorization could improve their
understanding of academic materials. The traditional environment seems
especially favorable for Hong Kong students, who tended to combine the process
of memorizing and understanding, which they found effective for obtaining high
grades in examinations (Kember, 1996; D. Watkins & Biggs, 1996). As found in
Study One (discussed in 6.1.1 and 6.1.2), both teachers and students had high
preferences for using the local style in teaching and learning, because this style
assisted students in achieving good academic results as well as in developing
other creativity-generating styles (Fan, et al., 2010; Sun, 2000).
For example, a successful experience was reported in the study by Klahr and
Nigam (2004), who found that 77% of the students who learned in the direct
instructional environment were able to design multiple confounded experiments
after acquiring basic knowledge of various experiments, as compared to 23% of
the students in a discovery-based instructional environment. Students who learned
in the traditional environment were also more successful in critiquing experiments
than those in the discovery-based instructional environment. Although students in
the control group of the present research significantly increased their use of Type
II styles after the instruction period, as discussed in sub-section 6.1.2, they did not
prefer to be taught in a traditional way in which the lessons focused excessively
on direct teaching of concrete materials and detailed information. They showed
interest in group discussions and other learning tasks such as drawing mind maps
or watching videos. However, with a goal of acquiring basic knowledge and
achieving better academic results, students adhered to the traditional method of
236
learning,
in
which
the
instructional
environment
was
rule-intensive,
textbook-based, and lecture-based. Thus, students might retain and increase
gradually their use of Type II learning styles.
Instructional environments affect students’ learning in complex ways (Ruscio
& Amabile, 1999). On the one hand, a traditional instructional environment helps
students to attain good academic results, and on the other hand, this instructional
environment tends to overload students and become counterproductive to
students’ learning (Kember, 2004). This might be the second possible factor
motivating students to adopt Type II learning styles. Evidence from available
research showed that students’ perceptions of heavy workload were directly
related to the development of Type II intellectual styles in learning (Birenbaum &
Rosenau, 2006; Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Lizzo, et al., 2002; Zeegers, 2001). As
reported in Watkins (2004) and also in the present research (Study Three),
students felt stressed and exhausted in completing the overloaded curriculum,
assignments, and quizzes in the traditional environment. These feelings became
stronger when they were promoted to the senior secondary school and were faced
with the educational reform. The over-reliance on rote memorization and
reproducing model answers further prevented them from using their creative and
critical minds. Thus, students increased their use of Type II styles in learning. In
addition, students in this study believed that they were capable of using higher
order thinking; however, the fully packed assignments and assessments did not
give them a chance to use such skills. Student 5 expressed: “The teacher liked to
keep us busy; he ordered us to copy key points from the blackboard or to jot down
notes from his lecture. We have lots of assignments so that we found it very
difficult to finish all the work every day.” To cope with the excessive demands in
this high- tension instructional environment, students were compelled to learn in a
routine, unreflective, and procedural way, and to eventually resort to and rely
heavily on Type II learning styles.
237
In summary, based on the above discussion, it is possible to conclude that
learning styles among students are modifiable. In an appropriately designed
instructional environment, students were encouraged or discouraged to use certain
types of learning styles. This effect was more obvious if students were being
instructed in the designed environment for a prolonged period. They began to
show more distinctive characteristics of using styles that matched the demands of
the environment. The effects of instructional environment on students’ learning
styles were different. Consistent with the hypotheses, teachers in the experimental
group designed a creativity-generating instructional environment that enabled
students to learn in a creative way and encouraged their use of Type I learning
styles. In contrast, teachers in the control group designed a traditional
instructional environment that forced students to learn in a norm-conforming way
and encouraged their development of Type II learning styles. The changes in
students’ learning styles over time were affected by teachers’ designs of different
instructional environments; however, influences of other personal and contextual
factors cannot be disregarded. The influences of students’ gender, satisfaction with
the learning environment, perception of teachers’ abilities, and the educational
qualifications of students’ mothers on the changes in learning styles are discussed
thoroughly in the next section.
6.2.3
The Development of Learning Styles Are Socialized by the
Demographic Characteristics of Students
Researchers asserted that the school and home contexts can play critical roles
in the process of socialization during the period of adolescence development
(Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Parke & Buriel, 1998; Spera, 2005; Steinberg & Silk,
2002; Wentzel, 1999). Within these two contexts, parents and teachers act as the
two powerful socializing agents in the socialization process to convey messages
(values, beliefs, goals, and attitudes) to students (Chen, 2010; Spera, 2005).
238
Students, with varying degrees of acceptance, internalize teachers’ and parents’
messages and adapt themselves to the contexts (Grusec, 1997, 2002). The
following discussion investigates this interactive socialization process by which
teachers and parents attempt to transmit these messages to students.
Within the styles literature, empirical findings supported the significant
relationship of intellectual styles to many socialization factors (Chen & Watkins,
2010; Fan, 2006; Fan & Zhang, 2009; Yu, 2012). Consistent with the previous
findings and in line with the hypothesis, results of the present research
demonstrated that several demographic variables contributed to the changes in
students’ learning styles over time. Four factors were identified: genders, levels of
satisfaction with instructional environment, perceptions of teachers’ ability, and
mother’s educational qualification. These results showed that socialization factors
did matter in students’ development of specific types of learning styles and further
justified that styles are malleable. The following discussion elaborates the four
factors.
6.2.3.1
Gender
Findings from the present research confirmed the well-established gender
differences in intellectual styles indicating that gender can account for significant
amounts of variation in styles (Zhang, 2010a; Zhang & Sachs, 1997). However,
results of the present research only partially confirmed the stereotyped gender
roles found in previous research. In the traditional views, males tended to employ
Type I intellectual styles and females tended to use Type II intellectual styles in
their learning (Alumran, 2008; Evans & Waring, 2008, 2009, 2011; Hlawaty, 2008;
Riding & Cheema, 1991). In contrast, the results of the present research revealed
that male students in the control group (learned in the traditional instructional
environment) increased their use of Type II learning styles and female students in
the experimental group (learned in the creativity-generating instructional
239
environment) increased their use of the internal style. These results demonstrated
that male and female students showed different patterns in using their learning
styles and that these patterns were developed based on their interactions with
different types of instructional environments.
Results of the present research might be related to the effect of an interaction
between gender and environment upon the development of intellectual styles
among students (Fan, 2006; Jorge, 1990; Riding & Rayner, 1998; Roberts, 1984;
Yu, 2012; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). These studies identified that male and
female students developed their learning styles differently based on their
interactions with different environments (instructional environments in the case of
the present study). For example, Fan’s (2006) and Lam-Phoon’s (1986) studies
supported the results of the present research. They found that male students
developed Type II styles when they interacted with a traditional instructional
environment. Fan (2006) examined how students developed their learning styles
differently in the traditional and hypermedia instructional environments. He found
that male students who studied in the traditional instructional environment
increased their use of Type II learning styles. Lam-Phoon (1986) investigated the
learning styles among a sample of Singapore students who studied under the
traditional and exam-oriented educational system. He also revealed that male
students were more likely to employ Type II styles in learning than Type I styles.
These results and the results of the present research demonstrated that
instructional environment can probably be more powerful than gender in
influencing students’ learning styles.
Female
students
in
the
experimental
group
(studied
in
the
creativity-generating instructional environment) demonstrated another pattern of
style development. They increased their use of the internal style (a Type III style).
This finding was contrary to the qualitative results reported in Section 5.1.2.3,
showing an increased use of the external style among students. However, this
240
finding confirmed the stereotyped gender difference found in previous research,
demonstrating that female students were more likely to study alone, structure their
time, and maintain attention in the traditional instructional environment (Pizzo,
Dunn, & Dunn, 1990; Roberts, 1984).
Although students in the present study and in the studies by Pizzo et al. and
Roberts were being instructed in two different types of instructional environments,
they both tended to learn in an internal way. One of the potential causes of this
finding may be the complexity of the interaction effect between gender and
instructional environment upon style development. In the case of the present
research, it seems that female students were more heavily influenced by
environment (i.e., instructional environments and the current educational reform)
than gender in the development of particular styles. Female students in the
experimental group were instructed by the creativity-generating way of learning,
however, they were still influencing by the traditional way of learning that they
have been using for many years in the traditional instructional environment. It is
possible that the traditional instructional environment had a powerful impact on
the use of learning styles among this group of students. Thus, they clung to use the
internal style in the newly implemented instructional environment. In addition, it
is also possible that the increasing pressure to attain achievement in the new
assessment system (launched through the current educational reform) further
forced female students to use the internal style, whom are stereotyped as more
conforming and conventional in general research findings.
Results indicated that gender had an effect on students’ development of
intellectual styles: male and female students changed their styles in different ways
during the experiment. However, it is possible to claim that instructional
environment was a more important factor than gender in the development of
particular styles. These findings further supported that styles are malleable and
suggested that a traditional instructional environment could encourage male
241
students to develop Type II intellectual styles and female students to develop the
internal style.
6.2.3.2
Students’ satisfaction with instructional environment
When students are promoted to a higher educational level, a new process of
socialization to the new academic environment begins (Haarala-Muhonen,
Ruohoniemi, Katajavuori, & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2011). This was the case in the
present research. That is, when students were promoted to high school, they
needed to adapt their habitual ways of learning to the new curriculum, new
assessment system, and new instructional environment. When students embarked
on this academic socialization process, the different ways that they interact with
the new academic environment might affect their expectations in teacher’s
teaching and planning of instructional environment. These expectations would
influence their development of behaviors and intellectual styles in learning (Curry,
2000; Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Lizzo, et al., 2002; Meyer, Parsons, & Dunne, 1990;
Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Scouller & Prosser, 1994; Segers, et al., 2003; Wilson,
Lizzo, & Ramsden, 1997). Therefore, it is also important to gain an understanding
of how students’ expectations about and satisfaction with the instructional
environment influenced their development of learning styles.
In the present research, results obtained in the control group were consistent
with those obtained in the experimental group. It was found that students in the
control group increased their use of Type II learning styles and students in the
experimental group decreased their use of Type I learning styles when they were
more satisfied with the instructional environment. Although findings from the two
groups were consistent, results did not contradict each other and made substantial
sense. It should be noted that students’ satisfaction with the instructional
environment was assessed during the time of the pre-test; therefore, their
satisfaction with the instructional environment should refer to the traditional
242
instructional environment that they had been using for many years.
Findings from previous studies indicated that students’ favorable or
unfavorable perceptions of the instructional environment influenced their adoption
of intellectual styles (Gijbels & Dochy, 2006; Lizzo, et al., 2002; Nijhuis, et al.,
2005; Segers, et al., 2006; Struyven, et al., 2006). However, results of the present
research could also be understood in an alternate way to understand how students’
perceptions of instructional environments were related with their intellectual
styles (Thomson & Falchikov, 1998). On the one hand, students may change their
intellectual styles based on their perception of the instructional environment. That
is, the contextual elements may influence students’ learning experiences in
different instructional environments in various ways and may force them to
develop particular types of intellectual styles. On the other hand, students’
preferences for intellectual styles may influence their perception of and
satisfaction with the instructional environment. That is, students rate the
instructional environment based on how this environment satisfies or matches
with their preferred way in learning. Thus, students who prefer to use Type I
learning styles may rate positively an environment that encourages their
development of Type I learning styles, and students who prefer to use Type II
learning styles may rate positively an environment that encourages their
development of Type II learning styles. In the case of the present research, it is
possible that students in both the control and experimental groups preferred to use
those styles (i.e., Type II) that could assist them in attaining good academic results,
and thereby they were more satisfied with the traditional environment and
increased their use of Type II styles (students in the control group) and decreased
their use of Type I styles (students in the experimental group).
In addition, findings from the experimental group further justified the main
findings discussed in Section 6.2.2, indicating that the traditional instructional
environment inhibited students’ development of Type I learning styles. At the
243
beginning of the semester, students in the experimental group rated their
satisfaction with the instructional environment (in the pre-test) based on their
prior learning experiences in that environment. At that time, students did not have
any successful experience of using Type I learning styles in the newly created
creativity-generating instructional environment; they tried to hold on to the
traditional knowledge transmission styles in learning. These norm-conforming
types of learning styles worked well in preparing students for college and
university entrance examinations (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). Students were
satisfied with this traditional instructional setting and therefore attempted to
maintain that setting (Baker, 1968; Entwistle & Tate, 1995). Thus, students in the
experimental group clung to their use of the traditional learning styles and
inhibited their use of the creativity-generating types of learning styles.
At the time of interview (conducted two months after the post-test), students
in both groups were asked again to rate their satisfaction with the instructional
environments based on their learning experiences in the instruction period.
Students in the control group were dissatisfied with the traditional environment.
They claimed that the didactic way of teaching was uninspiring and boring.
However, they lacked the skills, guidance, and confidence that enabled them to
learn in a creativity-generating way. Students in the experimental group stated that
they were satisfied with the instructional environment. They felt themselves to be
more capable of relating theoretical knowledge to practical situations (e.g.,
expressing ideas in discussion and writing assignment). They began to understand
what is essential in studying Liberal Studies and how to learn this subject
effectively by employing Type I learning styles. They were more confident in
teachers’ teaching and using Type I learning styles.
244
6.2.3.3
Students’ perceptions of teachers’ ability
Teachers are the soul of an instructional environment. They are responsible
for controlling all contextual elements, provide supports, encouragement,
feedback, and challenges to create a stimulating instructional environment in
which students are able to achieve a higher cognitive level of learning (Tynjala,
1999) and use flexibly their learning styles and strategies (Bereiter, 2002; Bereiter
& Scardamalia, 1996; Biggs, 2003; Ramsden, 2003). As many researchers
indicated, students’ perceptions of teachers’ teaching abilities reflected how the
teaching-learning process actually took place (Eccles et al., 1993; Gijbels &
Dochy, 2006; Haarala-Muhonen, et al., 2011; Zigarovich & Myers, 2011).
Therefore, how students perceived their teachers’ ability in teaching could
influence their development of particular learning styles.
In the present research, as shown in Table 4.20c and 4.21c, students in the
control group tended to employ diverse types of learning styles when they
perceived that their teachers had higher teaching ability. Students in the
experimental group decreased their use of Type II learning styles when they
perceived that their teachers had higher ability. These results can be explained by
the qualitative findings of the present research. It was found that both students in
the control and the experimental groups tended to rate teachers’ abilities based on
their use of instructional strategies, abilities on providing quality feedback, and
attitude in teaching (i.e., enthusiasm and support to students). The positive
relationships between students’ perceptions of teachers’ abilities and their
intellectual styles were clearly shown in the experimental group.
In line with the quantitative findings, students in the experimental group were
satisfied with their teachers’ teaching and decreased their use of Type II styles.
This result indicated that students in this group were more ready to try using Type
I styles. Students repeatedly mentioned in the interview that they felt their
teachers were capable of creating cooperative and interactive atmospheres in the
245
classroom. Teachers asked questions to facilitate discussion and provided delayed
feedback. Students felt that they were more confident to express their own ideas
and to critique the issues without being directed by the teacher. Besides, students
were satisfied with the diverse learning activities arranged by their teachers. The
various kinds of learning activities sustained their motivation in learning. In
addition, students deeply appreciated their teachers’ kindness and enthusiasm in
teaching and in their personal growth. Teachers were willing to use extra time
counseling with them about their daily problems, such as stress with homework,
arguments with peers, and conflicts with parents. The following quotations from
interviews illustrated their perceptions of their teachers’ abilities.
“In the Liberal Studies lesson, you always wanted to learn more. If you
lost the focus of the lessons, you missed a lot of good information. I
really appreciated the efforts that the teacher put on teaching. He
always had sufficient preparation in planning every lesson. If you paid
attention to the learning materials, you could see that they were all
connected to one another. Sometimes I felt guilty at having failed to
finish the work properly.” (Student K)
“Teacher gave me realistic, supportive, and reflective feedback; this
was very useful to facilitate our discussion, to correct misconceptions,
and to gain better understanding of the content materials. In addition, I
felt teacher and other students were very supportive during discussion,
therefore, I was not afraid to express my points of view and or make
mistakes.” (Student F)
In line with empirical findings, students were more motivated and engaged in
learning tasks when they rated their teachers as more effective (Chesebro &
McCroskey, 2001; Eccles, et al., 1993; Frymier & Houser, 1998; Myers & Knox,
246
2000; Teven & McCroskey, 1997). Thus, students gained more confidence in
using their abilities and trying new styles of learning (i.e., Type I styles) when
they perceived that their teachers were able to teach for understanding, show care
to students, show enthusiasm in teaching, provide feedback, and maintain a
cooperative atmosphere (Becker, Davis, Neal, & Grover, 1990; Gijbels & Dochy,
2006).
It was not surprising that students in the control group developed diverse
types of learning styles. On the one hand, the interview data showed that students
rated negatively their teachers’ abilities in teaching. They claimed that their
teachers expected them to follow directions and accept what they taught without
question, which is similar to what was reported in the literature (Mitsis & Foley,
2009; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylanne, 2008; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006).
Thus, students’ negative perceptions of teachers’ abilities drove them towards the
adoption of Type II learning styles. On the other hand, as discussed previously,
using diverse activities is a key characteristic of Liberal Studies, the interview
data showed that students in the control group also enjoyed participating in
diverse kinds of activities. These activities provided them with new experiences in
learning that were different from the traditional classroom. Thus, students were
actually offered opportunities to develop Type I styles in their learning. However,
without proper training in teaching in Type I styles, teachers conducted these
activities in a structured way. Some students said that they found their experiences
in small group activities (e.g., discussion) were sometimes tedious. One of the
students mentioned:
“I have no expectation of teacher’s feedback. Teacher rarely gave
feedback to us after discussions or activities. He did not accept
questions and challenges in the lesson. I remembered that I disagreed
with the teacher’s point of view in the lesson. He teased me without
247
explaining my comments properly. I felt embarrassed by his reaction
and I promised myself not to say anything in the class. It was better to
stay quiet and just follow his directions.” (Student 6)
Taking all the qualitative and qualitative findings together, these results
clearly demonstrated that students in the experimental group felt comfortable and
confident in using Type I learning styles when they perceived that their teachers
were able to teach for understanding and to show enthusiasm in the
teaching-learning process and when they thought their teachers were capable of
providing constructive feedback, adequate supports, and appropriate challenges.
In contrast, students in the control group showed mixed perceptions of teachers’
abilities in teaching; thus, they might have shifted between Type I and Type II
styles in their learning.
6.2.3.4
Educational qualifications of students’ mothers
Findings obtained in the control and the experimental groups of the present
research revealed similar results: students’ learning styles changed depending on
their mother’s educational qualifications. As Tables 4.22c and 4.23c show,
mothers’ high educational qualifications were positively related to students’ use of
Type I learning styles, whereas mothers’ low qualifications were positively related
to students’ use of Type II learning styles. In the Chinese culture in which every
person has a fixed role within a hierarchical set of social structures (Chen, 2010),
it is not surprising that mothers have an important influence on students’ learning
and development. As much convergent evidence (e.g., Hong Kong media,
newspapers, and formal and informal interviews) has demonstrated, the main
duties of mothers are to nurture children and monitor their learning and
development. Research on parental influences on adolescence development have
demonstrated that highly educated and higher income parents did better in
248
fostering their children’s school performance than did parents with lower
qualifications and incomes. Empirically, the influences of parenting factors on
students’ development of Type I learning styles can be explained in two ways.
First, research has found that highly educated parents tended to employ
authoritative parenting style (Areepattamannil, 2010; Kelley, Power, & Wimbush,
1992) and that this parenting style was significantly related to students’ positive
developmental outcomes, such as positive attitudes and academic performance
(Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Hindin, 2005; Spera,
2005; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). These kinds of highly educated
parents are warm and responsive while interacting with their children. They are
more likely to display supportive behaviors, set clear regulations for children’
behaviors, be actively involved in school-related work, provide their children with
explanations for their behaviors, interact with children by using reasoning, and
praise and encourage their children while disciplining them (Baumrind, 1971;
Carlson, et al., 2011; Chen, 2010; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Durkin, 1995). It is
possible that the well-educated mothers in the present research provided sufficient
guidance and support to students. They created a high security level of emotional
climate in which their children felt comfortable and independent in learning and
development. Therefore, students with highly educated mothers are more
independent, explorative, and cognitively competent; and develop Type I learning
styles (Chen, 2010).
Second, research suggested that highly educated parents have more
educational experiences and resources, and are better informed about educational
opportunities to nurture their children (Entwisle & Hayduk, 1982; Seginer, 1983;
Spera, 2005; Zhang, Haddad, Torres, & Chen, 2011). They are able to provide
more help with homework, arrange diverse kinds of extra-curricular activities,
discuss and evaluate contemporary issues, and monitor children’s academic
progress. Researchers found that less educated and lower income parents were
249
less informed about their educational opportunities and had limited opportunities
to be involved in school-related activities; therefore, they were forced to make
downward adjustments to their expectations of students’ academic performance
(Kao & Tienda, 1998; Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989; Zhang, et al., 2011). With
an array of services, goods, and stimulation, it is possible that students with highly
educated parents (in both the control and the experimental groups) more easily
develop a global perspective, have analytical and creative minds, and become
independent thinkers, thus developing Type I learning styles.
In summary, the second part of the discussion reported evidence from the
present research and previous relevant research work to support the contention
that styles are malleable. In addition, this research found that students’
development of learning styles was not only affected by teachers’ instructional
designs; it was also influenced by numerous variables such as their gender,
satisfaction with the instructional environment, perception of teachers’ ability in
teaching, and the educational qualifications of their mothers.
6.3
Do intellectual Styles Contribute to Students’
Development of Career Interests?
The kind of schooling was an important factor affecting students’
development of particular styles (Sternberg, 1997). Such influence would also
become a potent contributory factor to students’ psychosocial development (i.e.,
development of certain career interests). As Zhang (2010b) suggested, students’
preferred ways of using their abilities and processing information affect the way
in which they interact with different contexts and environments, which in turn
influence the way they respond to and perform at their studies and, ultimately,
affect their choice of future careers. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the
parallel influence of schooling (in the case of this research, instructional
environments) on students’ development of particular types of intellectual styles
250
and of career interests. This section focuses the discussion on students’
development of career interests in two different kinds of instructional
environments:
the traditional and the
creativity-generating instructional
environments. The following discussion elaborates on students’ development of (a)
a wider range of career interests, (b) the social and conventional career interest
types, and (c) the enterprising career interest type.
6.3.1
Students’ Development of A Wider Range of Career Interests
When the career interests of students in the control and the experimental
groups were compared, findings were expected. Students in the experimental
group developed a wider range of career interests than those in the control group.
They showed greater interest in five of the six career interest types (except the
realistic type) and scored significantly higher on three of them (i.e., the
enterprising, social, and conventional types).
Students’ development of career interests should be understood together with
their knowledge and experiences which are related to their career interests (Talib,
et al., 2010). That is, students are more likely to develop career interests that
match with an instructional environment that allows students to use their abilities
and maximize their potentials to a greater extent. Such interaction possibly
determines students’ development of their career interests (Erikson, 1968).
Empirically, it was found that Type I intellectual styles were positively related to
psychosocial development. For example, Zhang and He (2011) investigated the
predictive power of intellectual styles for psychosocial development among 426
university students in Shanghai. The researchers found that Type I intellectual
styles positively contributed to psychosocial development whereas Type II
intellectual styles negatively contributed to psychosocial development. These
findings dovetailed nicely with Zhang’s later study published in 2010 conducted
among university students in Nanjing and Hong Kong.
251
In addition to the previous empirical research, the qualitative findings
(interview data) of the present research showed clearly students’ learning
experiences in the control and the experimental groups, which explicitly explained
the reasons why students in the experimental group demonstrated a wider range of
career interests. Students in the two groups held different perceptions of and
beliefs in studying Liberal Studies. It seemed that students in the control group
(studied
in
the
traditional
instructional
environment
typified
by
the
norm-conforming types of teaching styles) were unable to establish a linkage
between the knowledge and skills taught in the Liberal Studies lessons and their
predetermined career goals. They viewed Liberal Studies as a core subject that
was a newly added requirement for the university entrance examination. They put
their focus on examination results, and more often than not, they did not try to
understand the materials thoroughly and relate these materials to other areas of
their studies and lives. Therefore, they perceived that this subject was irrelevant to
their career development and that it could not contribute toward reaching their
career goals. On the contrary, students in the experimental group (studied in the
creativity-generating
instructional
environment
typified
by
the
creativity-generating types of teaching styles) perceived the materials taught in the
lessons as being useful for studying other subjects and as being applicable to their
future careers. They expressed that they were more conscious of their personal
development, the social values of different careers, and the demands of society
after studying this subject.
Students’ perceptions of their learning experiences in the Liberal Studies
lessons made substantive sense in the development of diverse career interests. It
was possible that the favorable interaction between the experimental group and
the creativity-generating instructional environment facilitated their development
of wider interests in different types of careers. In contrast, the unfavorable
interaction between the control group and the traditional instructional
252
environment limited their development of career interests to only a certain kind.
These results not only lent support to the hypothesis that the creativity-generating
instructional environment facilitated students’ development of wider range of
career interests, but also confirmed the strong relationships between intellectual
styles and career interest types.
6.3.2
Students’ Development of the Social and Conventional Types
of Career Interests
Based on the theoretic definitions of each style and career interest type, the
author hypothesized that students in the experimental group would be more likely
to develop the investigative, enterprising, and artistic types of career interests in
the creativity-generating instructional environment, whereas students in the
traditional group would be more likely to develop the social, conventional, and
realistic types of career interests in the traditional instructional environment.
However, results of the present research revealed that students in the experimental
group developed the social and conventional types of career interests that were
expected to develop among those students in the control group.
It was not surprising that students in the experimental group developed the
conventional type of career interest. It is possible that students’ continuous
practices in using the analytical ability in the creativity-generating instructional
environment facilitated their development of the conventional career interest.
Zhang (2004b) found that the analytical ability of the Hong Kong sample
positively contributed to the development of the conventional career interest. The
analytical ability has great value in the ongoing educational reform and the newly
developed Liberal Studies curriculum. Students in the experimental group were
granted ample opportunities to use this ability in such activities as data analysis
and compare and contrast. They practiced repeatedly to make connections among
the factors of a problem and use learned information to solve various problems
253
(Sternberg, 1996; Zhang, 2004b). These continuous practices during the
instruction period helped to strengthen students’ analytical ability, which in turn,
might have facilitated their development of the conventional career interest type.
Furthermore, as frequently mentioned in this chapter, the educational reform
and the newly added Liberal Studies curriculum may increase students’ stress and
anxiety, especially for those who were already confused by the reform and were
trying hard to adapt to the new system. To maximize the academic results in
public examinations, students in the experimental group should also develop a
propensity for handling the concrete data and information in detail (i.e., the
conventional career interest type). It might be that the conventional career interest
type works with Type I styles in a complementary way in which students in the
creativity-generating instructional environment could be flexibly use their creative
ability without ignoring any important information in the lessons.
In addition, the interview data showed that the creativity-generating
instructional environment had a strong collaborative atmosphere. This
instructional environment granted students in the experimental group sufficient
opportunities to interact with peers and teachers, express their feelings, and share
their ideas. Students were used to discussing, debating, or working on small group
projects with peers. As reported in Chapter 5, students in the experimental group
increased their use of the external style. It was consistently found in the literature
that the external style was positively associated with the social career interest type
(Zhang, 2000a, 2001b). It might be that the collaborative atmosphere and the
opportunities to work with peers in the creativity-generating instructional
environment contributed to students’ development of the social career interest
type.
Although students did not develop their career interest types in the predicted
way, the results from the present research were not surprising. Interestingly, as
suggested by the RIASEC model (Holland, 1973, 1985, 1994), the social,
254
enterprising, and conventional career interest types are adjacent to one another on
the Holland hexagon, supporting Holland’s ideas of consistency among the six
career interest types. Thus, the results of the present research demonstrated a high
degree of relatedness between the aforementioned career interest types developed
in the creativity-generating instructional environment (Alvi, et al., 1988; Holland,
1973, 1985). These results also lent support to Zhang’s (2004, 2008) studies.
Zhang found that the social, enterprising, and conventional types of career
interests were predicted by Type I intellectual styles. Therefore, it was possible
that the creativity-generating instructional environment facilitated students’
development of a wider range of career interests, especially the social,
enterprising, and conventional career interest types.
6.3.3
Students’ Development of the Enterprising Type of Career
Interest
As predicted, students in the experimental group scored significantly higher
on the enterprising career interest type than those in the control group. This
finding was consistent across students’ demographic characteristics. Obviously, as
Table 4.27 showed, the enterprising career interest type stood out among the six
career interest types. Students in the experimental group with different genders,
favorite subjects, and experiences in extra-curricular activities had scored
significantly higher on the enterprising career interest type than the control group
counterparts. These results evinced that students in the experimental group might
have greater interests in engaging their life pursuits in the enterprising type of
careers. More importantly, these results justified that the types of teaching styles
teachers employed in creating the instructional environment did affect students’
development of career interests. Their development of the enterprising career
interest was stylistically matched with the creativity-generating instructional
environment and consistent with their development of Type I learning styles.
255
Empirically, results from previous studies that explored the relationships
between intellectual styles and vocational interests made the present results
understandable (Balkis & Isiker, 2005; Zhang, 2000a, 2001b, 2004b). These
studies were consistent with one another and supported the development of the
enterprising career interest type in the creativity-generating instructional
environment. For example, empirical findings indicated that the enterprising
career interest type was related to Type I intellectual styles (Balkis & Isiker, 2005;
Zhang, 2000a, 2001b, 2004b). Students with these styles and the enterprising
career interest type shared common preferences for interacting with peers (the
external style), evaluating different ideas and situations (the judicial style),
coming up with ideas (the legislative style), and maximizing their academic
achievements (achievement learning approach). Thus, the results of the present
research made substantive sense since students who tended to use Type I learning
styles in the creativity-generating instructional environment would be more likely
to develop the enterprising career interest type coincidently.
Conceptually, results of the present research also could be explained by the
definitions of the enterprising career interest type as well as by the instructional
environment in which students in the experimental group engaged. Teachers in the
experimental
group
employed
Type
I
teaching
styles
to
create
the
creativity-generating instructional environment (Sternberg, 1997; Zhang &
Sternberg, 2006), in which students experienced enough opportunities to imagine,
create, decide, judge, evaluate, criticize, make plans, solve novel problems, share
ideas, express opinions, and communicate with peers and teachers. This
instructional environment shared common features with an enterprising
environment in which students could establish a preference for dealing with the
outer world by interacting with people and taking the leadership role (Holland,
1973, 1985, 1994). Therefore, students in this group developed not only an
enterprising career interest type, but also Type I learning styles. Students who
256
tended to use Type I learning styles would want to be engaged in tasks and
learning behaviors that the enterprising type of students would also tend to engage
in and display (Zhang, 2004b).
In addition to intellectual styles, personality is another unique system that
can be used to understand individuals’ actions and behaviors (Balkis & Isiker,
2005). The enterprising career interest type was also found to be related to the
extraverted and open personality types (Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Larson,
et al., 2001). These career interest and personality types were similar to Type I
intellectual styles by definition. They represented preferences for being people
oriented, open minded, sociable, and assertive, and showing independent
judgment and an active imagination. When the above explanations were taken
together, the development of the enterprising career interest type among students
in the experimental group (with different demographic characteristics) was
understandable.
In summary, the present results indicate that teachers could design
instructional environments (dominated by Type I teaching styles) to deliberately
develop students with particular types of career interests. Considering all the
empirical and conceptual explanations for the results, it was reasonable for the
author to conclude that the creativity-generating instructional environment would
develop students’ Type I learning styles coincident with the social, enterprising,
and conventional types of career interests, which matched with the stylistic
demands of the creativity-generating instructional environment as well as with the
ongoing educational reform. In other words, as the creativity-generating
instructional environment (as well as most of the education systems around the
world) required, students in the experimental group developed higher-order
thinking skills, competence to solve problems, and adaptation to new
environments and vocational interests.
257
6.4
Continuous Development of Students’ Type I Learning
Styles And A Wider Range of Career Interests
Based on the above discussion in 6.2 and 6.3, it seems that it is advantageous
for students to develop Type I learning styles together with the enterprising career
interest within this highly competitive educational system and the ever-changing
labor market. Thus, students with Type I thinking styles and a wider range of
career interests might be more flexible and ready to use their abilities in
creativity-generating ways to confront challenges that they might meet in different
situations. Although researchers and teachers might make much effort to gather
data and information about students’ learning and development, they might not
know how to modify instruction, design curriculum, or plan activities to best meet
students’ individual needs and characteristics (Chen, et al., 2011). Therefore, an
important challenge for the ongoing reform remains the development and
implementation of authentic practices in teaching and learning that are able to
nurture students’ competencies in solving problems in effective and alternate ways;
applying knowledge from diverse sources; and thinking in creative, critical, and
reflective ways (David Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, & Stott, 1997;
Segers, et al., 2003; Tynjala, 1999).
With the integration of findings from the relevant literature and results from
the present research, the author was confident to claim that intellectual styles are
value laden and modifiable. Teachers can create instructional environments or
design programs with an aim to develop students’ particular types of intellectual
styles and career interest types that are more valuable in a particular society. In
this section, three possible ways to facilitate students’ development of styles and
career interests are suggested.
First, to facilitate style and career interest development, teachers are advised
to develop a style profile among students that mixes styles of all three types, but
not a biased set of learning styles (Evans & Waring, 2009). For teachers in Hong
258
Kong, it may be more suitable to promote the use of Type I, the local, and the
external styles among students. As Section 4.2.2 reported, Hong Kong students
tended to combine the process of memorizing and understanding (Kember, 1996;
D. Watkins & Biggs, 1996), and both teachers and students preferred each other to
use Type I styles and the local style in the teaching-learning process. In addition,
Type I learning styles provide students with greater flexibility in using their
abilities (Sternberg, 1997) and are in the line with the current educational reform.
With this profile, it is possible that students are, one the one hand, familiar with
using the local style to master the knowledge and present it without difficulty, and
on the other hand, are confident in employing Type I and the external styles to
explore the deeper meaning of knowledge and apply them by using higher-order
thinking skills such as critical, creative, and reflective thinking skills.
Furthermore, based on results obtained from the experimental study and the
interview data of the present research, the creativity-generating instructional
environment was more successful in developing students’ Type I learning styles
and a wider range of career interests. As the interview data indicated, students in
the experimental group showed greater enjoyment in learning than those students
in the control group. This instructional environment also allowed students to learn
in a way that matched with their preferences and their teachers’ preferences, and
allowed teachers to show their appreciation of their students’ efforts. Therefore, in
the case of Hong Kong, teachers are advised to create a creativity-generating
instructional environment largely based on the notion of Type I teaching styles
and complemented by the use of the local and the external teaching styles.
That is, teachers’ present tasks, activities, assignments, and assessments
should provide students with sufficient opportunities to use higher level skills
such as explore, inquiry, create, criticize, examine, review, judge, and analyze (i.e.,
Type I styles), and with appropriate opportunities to learn detailed information
and focus on concrete ideas (i.e., the local style). The process of participating in
259
learning how to use diverse learning styles is also a process of reinforcement or
training in using those styles flexibly (Fan, 2006). In this instructional
environment, teachers could offer Type II learners of opportunities of developing
greater flexibility in using various types of styles and adapting their
norm-conforming styles to the demands of the creativity-generating instructional
environment and the current educational reform.
Another possible way of facilitating students’ development of particular
styles and career interest types, as based on the feedback from and experiences of
teachers in the experimental group and of the author herself as a school teacher, is
to restructure teacher education. Within the curriculum of teacher education in
some of the renowned universities (including those in Hong Kong), intellectual
styles is a rare topic to be taught. Therefore, it was not surprising that teachers
who participated in the experimental study of the present research did not have an
idea of intellectual styles before they attended the specifically designed training
workshop.
Teachers and their intellectual styles in teaching determine a wide variety of
teaching activities (Khandaghi & Rajaei, 2011; Serife, 2008) and in turn influence
the development of learning styles. Although some teachers attempted to train
students with specific styles, without the necessary skills and knowledge to
modify instruction, they failed to produce changes in an expected direction
(Goldsmith & Kerr, 1991; Gordon & Debus, 2002; Murdock, et al., 1993). In this
regard, one recommendation is to revise and restructure the curricula of teacher
education. The modified/new curricula should have the following characteristics.
First, the teacher education curricula should include a module or course that
introduces the concept of intellectual styles (learning and teaching styles in
particular), principles, and characteristics of styles, as well as the many different
ways that styles affect students’ performances in learning. Second, the curricula
should promote awareness of styles among teachers and students and knowledge
260
about how to gather data regarding students’ and teachers’ intellectual styles.
Third, the curricula should train teachers how to match their instruction,
assignments, and assessments to different styles. Furthermore, teachers should be
given opportunities to practically plan teaching by employing the ideas of
intellectual styles. Through these kinds of trainings, on the one hand, it is hoped
that teacher could acquire skills and knowledge to use a variety of methods in
their teaching and on the other hand, become flexible to vary their instruction to
benefit students with different styles.
In summary, taking into account students’ and teachers’ preferences for
intellectual styles in education and other situational factors (i.e., demands of the
assessment system and educational reform), teachers are advised to develop
students’ style profiles that mix styles of all three types (i.e., Type I, the external,
and the local styles). This style profile should be developed in a
creativity-generating instructional environment largely based on the idea of Type I
teaching styles. With an appropriate and suitable degree, teachers should also be
trained to design tasks and activities to develop students with norm-conforming
types of learning styles (i.e., the local style).
261
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
The present research employed a mixture of quantitative and qualitative
research approaches to investigate the nature of intellectual styles. In particular,
this research had three objectives. The first was to examine the issue of style value
(whether or not styles are value-laden). The second was to examine the issue of
style malleability (whether or not styles are malleable). The third was to examine
the impact of teaching styles on students’ development of learning styles and
career interests. These objectives were achieved through a series of three studies:
an exploratory study (Study One), an experimental study (Study Two), and
individual interviews (Study Three). Findings obtained from these studies have
been reported in detail in Chapters 4 and 5. These results have also been
extensively analyzed and discussed in Chapter 6. This final chapter summarizes
the findings from all three studies, draws conclusions, and discusses the
contributions, implications, and limitations of the research. Finally, it suggests
directions for future research.
7.1.
Conclusions
Three conclusions can be drawn, each relating to one of the three objectives
stated in Chapter 1. First, findings from Study One confirmed that styles are
value-laden. Students and teachers had their own preferences for each other to
employ styles in the teaching-learning process. In particular, students preferred
their teachers to use Type I, the local, and the external styles in teaching. Teachers
also demonstrated higher preferences for their students to use Type I, the local,
and the external styles in their learning. These results indicated that it was
appropriate to conduct an experimental study (Study Two) that aimed at
developing students’ Type I learning styles and broadening the range of their
career interests.
262
Second, findings from Studies Two and Three supported the contention that
styles are malleable. Students developed particular types of learning styles in
response to a specifically designed instructional environment. In particular,
teachers in the experimental group were trained to employ Type I teaching styles
to construct a creativity-generating environment in which students gradually
developed Type I learning styles approximately two months after the instructional
period. Teachers in the control group employed their habitual styles in teaching
within a traditional instructional environment in which students increased their
use of Type II styles after the instructional period. In addition, the changes in
students’ learning styles were found to be different based on their gender, their
satisfaction with the instructional environment, perception of their teachers’
teaching abilities, and the educational qualifications of their mothers.
Third, teachers’ teaching styles had a direct impact on students’ development
of particular types of career interests. A parallel development between learning
styles and career interest types was found in Study Two. In particular, students in
the experimental group developed a wider range of career interests than students
in the control group. They scored significantly higher on the social, enterprising,
and conventional types of career interests. Students in the experimental group
showed a strong preference for the enterprising career interest type; they scored
significantly higher on this type than their control group counterparts, regardless
of their gender, favorite subjects, and experiences in extra-curricular activities.
7.2.
Contributions
The contributions of the present research lie in the theoretical implications
regarding the instruments and the research design, and in its contribution to a
better understanding of the nature of intellectual styles and that of the
relationships between intellectual styles and career interest types.
263
First, this research ascertained the reliability and validity of two instruments,
the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory (PTSLI) and the Preferred
Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (PTSTI). Both instruments were found to
be reasonably reliable and valid instruments to measure teachers’ preferred
learning styles among students and students’ preferred teaching styles among
teachers, respectively. These two instruments were effective for the Hong Kong
secondary school teachers and students who participated in the research.
Second, the experimental research design (Study Two) provided a more
defensible stance on the issue of style malleability in relation to the nature of
intellectual styles. Results from this research indicated that the research design
was appropriate for examining the research questions. The experimental
longitudinal design with a combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures
contributed to a better understanding of how and why students changed or
retained their learning styles during a prolonged period (six months). Specifically,
the design of the experimental study was composed of five procedures:
recruitment, pre-test for students, teacher training workshop (for the experimental
group of teachers only), instruction (with class observation), and post-test for
students. Each procedure was designed to obtain more accurate results. This
rigorous experimental design was valuable for understanding the impact of
teachers’ teaching styles on students’ learning styles and the development of
career interests.
The third and more important contribution of the present research is that it
revealed the nature of intellectual styles. Along with the previously discussed
findings in Chapter 6, results of the present research suggested that styles are
value-laden. Students and teachers preferred each other to use Type I intellectual
styles in teaching and learning, respectively. These findings enhanced our
understanding that styles are value-laden but not value-free. Findings from the
experimental longitudinal study demonstrated different patterns of style changes
264
among students in the control (studied in the traditional instructional environment)
and the experimental (studied in the creativity-generating instructional
environments) groups. These findings enhanced our understanding of style
malleability, confirming that styles are modifiable and can be trained within a
specifically designed environment. Results of the present research also indicated a
parallel development of students’ learning styles and career interests, which
further supported that intellectual styles play a critical role in students’ learning
and development. In this sense, the understanding of the nature of intellectual
styles has practical value for education (which will be discussed in the next
section). Educators, teachers, and researchers can apply the notion of intellectual
styles to enhance the quality of education as well as students’ learning and various
aspects of their development.
Fourth, findings from this research enriched and extended the literature on
the relationships between intellectual styles and career interest types. This is the
first research to explore the relationship between thinking styles and career
interest types by examining the impact of teachers’ teaching styles on students’
career interests. The statistically significant relationships indicated that teachers’
ways of teaching have a direct impact on students’ development of their career
interests. Students can broaden their career interests through interacting with
different instructional environments. These findings also have practical value for
education, which will be discussed in the next section.
7.3.
Implications
Four major implications for educational practice can be derived from the
present findings. First, intellectual styles can be used as an indicator to show
teachers’ and students’ preferred method of education in Hong Kong. Second,
intellectual styles can be used as a practical framework to design a
creativity-generating instructional environment. Third, the present findings can be
265
used to encourage students and teachers to make adaptive changes to their styles.
Fourth, intellectual styles can help students to develop a wider range of career
interests.
The first implication concerns teachers and students and is derived from the
findings that both teachers and students preferred Type I intellectual styles. These
findings reflect that both teachers and students preferred a creativity-generating
way over a traditional way of teaching and learning. In general, teachers did not
expect students to memorize and reproduce factual content without understanding
the materials, and students did not expect their teachers to teach in a
rote-memorizing way with mass lectures and repetitive drilling. These findings
show that the traditional way of teaching and learning may no longer be a
preferred method of education, especially in Hong Kong where educational
reform is ongoing. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to bring students’ and their
own preferences for using Type I styles into practice and to construct a favorable
learning environment that encourages the use of Type I teaching and learning
styles.
Teachers’ and students’ preferences for using Type I styles in teaching and
learning also contributed to the second implication of this research. Their
preferences provided a practical framework for Hong Kong secondary school
teachers in planning their teaching activities and designing instructional
environments. The results suggest that teachers can use Type I teaching styles in
designing a creativity-generating instructional environment that allows students to
engage in higher-order thinking, confront challenges and dilemmas, and exchange
ideas. This creativity-generating instructional environment provides ample
opportunities for students to use Type I learning styles, which further facilitates
their development of Type I learning styles.
The third implication of this research is derived from the findings that
teachers’ teaching styles affected students’ development of particular learning
266
styles. Based on these findings, students can consciously develop or adjust their
own learning styles to adapt better to the instructional environment. Therefore, it
is possible for teachers to develop particular types of learning styles among
students by designing different kinds of instructional environments.
For example,
teachers can develop Type I learners by designing a creativity-generating
instructional environment that provides opportunities for students to think, create,
compare and contrast, reflect, analyze, and discuss. However, if teachers want to
develop students’ Type II learning styles, they can design a traditional
instructional environment that relies heavily on lecture, rote memorizing, and
repeated drilling.
The fourth implication of this research was derived from the finding that
students who learned in the creativity-generating instructional environment
developed a wider range of career interests than those who learned in the
traditional instructional environment. This finding reflects that instructional
environments do matter in students’ development of career interests. To
deliberately cultivate a wider range of career interests among students, teachers
are encouraged to use Type I learning styles in designing creativity-generating
instructional environments with experiential and stimulating types of activities. In
this kind of instructional environment, students may find it easier to connect the
learning materials to their pre-determined career goals so that they are more aware
of their personal career interests and the social values and demands of different
careers.
7.4.
Limitations
Four limitations are identified for further consideration. These limitations
concern the research sample and generalization of the results, the numbers of
repeated measurements and the time interval between each measurement, the
267
treatment of the experimental group, and the use of a newly added subject, Liberal
Studies, as the research background.
First, because of an unexpected change in school policies, two schools
dropped out of the experimental study nearly at the end of the research, which
reduced the sample size in the experimental group by almost one-third. Because
of the reduced sample size in the experimental group, the number of students in
the control and the experimental groups became unbalanced. The elimination of
two schools limited the results of the study, especially concerning the causality
between the creativity-generating instructional environment and students’ use of
Type I intellectual styles as well as comparing the style changes between the two
groups from the pre-test to the post-test. Given this limitation, the generalizability
of the experimental effect was lessened.
Second, although a repeated measures experimental and longitudinal design
was applied in the present research, the expected experimental effects were not
demonstrated fully until the time of the individual interviews that were conducted
two months after the collection of the post-test data. Perhaps the interval between
the pre-test and the post-test was not long enough to allow a clear identification of
the changes in students’ learning styles. In addition, the use of only two waves of
data detected a general pattern of style change, and the change trends of students’
learning styles looked vague. The ways that students changed their learning styles
needed to be further clarified. With additional time, it would be better to measure
the changes in a longer interval (e.g., half a year) and to increase the numbers of
repeated measures (e.g., three or four waves) to allow a clearer understanding of
the impact of teachers’ teaching on students’ development of learning styles and
career interests.
Third, students in the experimental group received instruction in Liberal
Studies in the specially designed creativity-generating instructional environment;
however, they continued to study other subject matters in a traditional
268
instructional environment. For this reason, the experimental effect might be
minimized. Students might resist changing their learning styles towards Type I
because of the intensive drilling and rote-memorizing they experienced in learning
other subjects in the traditional instructional environment. One possible way to
overcome this limitation is to convince teachers of other subjects to design
creativity-generating instructional environments in teaching their subjects. Thus,
students would have sufficient time and experience in using Type I styles in
learning.
Fourth, the experimental research was conducted during Liberal Studies
instruction, which is a newly added academic subject in the current educational
reform in Hong Kong. The use of this subject matched the notion of Type I
intellectual styles, which provide teachers with more opportunities and
flexibilities to create a creativity-generating instructional environment. However,
teachers did not have experience in teaching Liberal Studies and in using Type I
teaching styles in their teaching. In addition, teachers were forced to follow a
prescribed curriculum and other policies from the education department. Thus,
teachers might not be able to construct the creativity-generating instructional
environment as expected. Therefore, more class observations are warranted to
make sure that teachers teach in the expected way, and consultation meetings are
needed to provide teachers with continuous support in handling any problems.
Fifth, it was assumed that teachers in the control group taught students using
Type II teaching styles; however, there could be a possibility that some teachers in
this group had a preference for using Type I styles in teaching. Although some
evidence was obtained from the interview data showing that the control group
teachers frequently used Type II styles in teaching, more evidence should be
provided (e.g., class observation) to ensure that teachers in the control group did
use Type II styles in teaching. In addition, another possible way to overcome this
limitation is to provide the control group teachers with an equal amount of
269
training on how to create a traditional instructional environment by using Type II
styles.
Sixth, a pre-test on career interest was not given to students in neither the
control nor the experimental groups. It was possible that any difference found
between the experimental and the control groups at the post-test could have been
due to differences between the two groups before the experiment, rather than due
to the use of Type I or Type II teaching styles. Although it was still worthy of
comparing the differences in students’ career interests among the two groups at
the time of post-test, the results must be interpreted tentatively.
7.5.
Future Research Directions
In this section, given the preliminary nature of this research, its conclusions,
contributions, and limitations, five major research directions are identified. These
are the use of alternate instruments, the use of more repeated measurements, the
use of sample students from secondary schools, the investigation of the local style,
and the extension to other developmental variables.
First, the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2) and the
Self-directed Search (SDS) were reliable and valid instruments to assess students’
learning styles and career interests, respectively. However, both teachers and
students in the experimental study expressed that the two inventories were too
complicated and time consuming to be administered in the fully packed
curriculum. Teachers reported that some students were annoyed about completing
the two inventories within a lesson. It is suggested that in future studies,
researchers could develop a short form of the TSI-R2 for secondary school
students. Also suggested is using an alternative instrument to substitute for the
SDS, for example, the Short Version Self-Directed Search (Zhang, 1999), for
which reliability and validity were also assured (Zhang, 2000a, 2001b, 2004b).
270
Second, both the literature on intellectual styles and that career interests have
focused mainly on university students. There is lack of research that employs
samples in secondary school setting. In addition, secondary school education in
Hong Kong is quite different from that of Western countries. For example,
students in Hong Kong face dilemmas and difficulties similar to university
students in Western countries. They have to make educational choices (i.e.,
streams of study) before they enter high school, which determines the major
subject they can study at the university level. Therefore, it is worthwhile to
continue to sample students from secondary schools for future research on
intellectual styles and career development.
Third, the local style was categorized as a Type II style; however, findings
from the present research and existing research have demonstrated a unique role
of this style in student learning. For example, the local style was preferred by both
teachers and students in teaching and learning (Betoret, 2007; Zhang, 2004e, 2008;
Zhang, et al., 2005), contributed to the development of Type I intellectual styles
(Zhang, 2006), were positively correlated to students’ psychosocial development
(Zhang & He, 2011), were associated with positive human attributes (Fan et al.,
2011), and were related to higher academic achievement (Cano-Garcia & Hughes,
2000; Sun, 2000; Zhang, 2001a, 2002e, 2007c, 2008). Therefore, it would be
interesting to conduct research especially investigating the role of the local style
in students’ learning and development. This understanding might promote the
practical use of intellectual styles in education, including developing students’
mixed types of learning styles that are beneficial to their learning and
development.
Finally, intellectual styles matter significantly in education; however, the
application of styles in education is still developing. In recent decades, the
development of intellectual styles has shown great progress. It is believed that
continuous research on intellectual styles could make the concept of intellectual
271
style more applicable in education. Recently, Zhang (2010b; 2011) investigated
the relationships between intellectual styles and Eriksonian stages of psychosocial
development, and Yu (2012) examined the impact of teachers’ interpersonal
relationships on students’ learning styles. To increase the understanding and the
applicability of intellectual styles to education, the causality of intellectual styles
on students’ learning and development as well as the relationships between
intellectual styles and other developmental variables deserve further investigation.
The research on intellectual styles still has much room for development and
improvement. Many research topics deserve further in-depth investigation; the
aforementioned directions are only some of the possibilities. It is foreseeable that
intellectual styles can be practically implemented in different aspects of our lives
through scholars’ theorization and persistent research. Therefore, it is our
responsibility to keep the research on styles growing.
272
REFERENCES
Albert, R. S. (1990). Identity, experiences, and career choice among the
exceptionally gifted and eminent. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.),
Theories of Creativity (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
Alborzi, S., & Ostovar, S. (2007). Thinking styles of gifted and nongifted students
in Iran. Psychological Reports, 100(3, Pt2), 1076-1082.
Allinson, C. W., Armstrong, S. J., & Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive
style on leader-member exchange: A study of manager-subordinate dyads.
Jounal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 201-220.
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of
intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management
Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
Alloport, G. W. (1937). Personality; a psychological interpretation. . New York H.
Holt and Company.
Alumran, J. I. A. (2008). Learning styles in relation to gender, field of study, and
academic achievement for Bahraini University Students. Individual
Differences Research, 6(4), 303-316.
Alvi, S. A., Khan, S. B., Hussain, M. A., & Baig, T. (1988). Relationship between
Holland's typology and cognitive styles. International Journal of
Psychology, 23, 449-459.
Amir, R., & Jelas, Z. M. (2010). Teaching and Learning Styles in Higher
Education Institutions: Do They Match? Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 7(C), 680-684.
Areepattamannil, S. (2010). Parenting practices, parenting style, and children's
school achievement. Psychological Studies, 55(4), 283-283.
Atkinson, G., Murrell, P. H., & Winters, M. R. (1990). Career personality types
and learning styles. Psychological Reports, 66, 160-162.
Auyeung, P., & Sands, J. (1996). A cross-cultural study of the learning style of
accounting students. Accounting and Finance, 36, 267-274.
Ayati, M., Ataran, M., & Mehrmohamadi, M. (2001). A model for IT based
teacher training curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2(5), 55-80.
273
Baker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methjods for Studying
the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Balasooriya, C. D., Hughes, C., & Toohey, S. (2009). Impact of a new integrated
medicine program on students' approaches to learning. Higher Education
Research & Development, 28, 289-302.
Balkis, M., & Isiker, G. B. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and
personality types. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 33(3), 283-294.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the
relationship between the five-factor model of personalityy and Holland's
occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45-74.
Baumgartner, T. A., Strong, C. H., and Hensley. (2006). Conducting and Reading
Research in Health and Human Performance. (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1-103.
Becker, A. H., Davis, S. F., Neal, L., & Grover, C. A. (1990). Student expectations
of course and instructor. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 159-162.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Rethinking learning. In D. Olson & N.
Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New
Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling (pp. 485-513). Cambridge,
MA: Basil Blackwell.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Zhang, L. F., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking Styles and
Academic Achievement Among Filipino Students. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 163(2), 149.
Betoret, F. D. (2007). The influence of students's and teachers' thinking styles on
student course satisfaction and on their learning process. Educational
Psychology, 27(2), 219-234.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British
Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 48, 266-279.
274
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn,
Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1995). Assessment of learning. In J. B. Biggs & D. Watkins (Eds.),
Classroom Learning: Educational Psychology for the Asian Teacher.
Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Biggs, J. B. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In L. F.
Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and
cognitive styles (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the student
does (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education
& Open University Press.
Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning
orientations, and learning strategies of pre-service and in-inservice
teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 213-225.
Bogan, H. C. (1993). Student preferences for intellectual styles: pre- and
post-student teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(3-A), 894.
Bold, C. (2008). Peer support groups: fostering a deeper approach to learning
through critical reflection on practice. Reflective Practice, 9(3), 257-267.
Bosacki, S., Innerd, W., & Towson, S. (1997). Field independence-dependence
and self-esteem in preadolescents: Does gender make a difference?
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 691-703.
Bosmans, G., Braet, C., Beyers, W., Leeuwen, K. V., & Vlierberghe, L. V. (2011).
parents' power assertive discipline and internalizing problems in
adolescents: the role of attachment. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11,
34-55.
Bosmans, G., De Raedt, R., & Braet, C. (2007). The invisible bonds: Does the
secure base script of attachment influence children's attention toward their
mother? Journal of Clinical child and Adolescent Psychology, 36,
557-567.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). An empirical study of the pluralism of
learning and adaptive styles in an MBA program. Paper presented at the
the 60th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto,
Boyatzis.
275
Brand, H. J., Van-Noorwyk, K. S., & Hanekom, J. D. (1994). Administering the
Self-Directed Search on a group of black adolescents. South African
Journal of Psychology, 24(2), 47-52.
Broad, M., Matthews, M., & McDonale, A. (2004). Accoundting education
through an online-supported virtual learning environment. Active Learning
in higher education, 5(2), 135-151.
Cakmak, M. (2011). What are prospective teachers' opinions about their
instructors' teaching styles? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15,
1960-1964.
Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and Thinking Styles: an
analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement.
Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413-430.
Carlson, L., Raczniak, R. N., & Wertley, C. (2011). Parental Style: The
implications of what we know (and think we know). Journal of
Advertising Research, 51(2), 427-435.
Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2002). Metacognitive development as a shift in
approach to learning: An in-depth study. Studies in Higher Education, 27,
459-470.
Chen, C. (2010). The impact of temperament, personality, and parenting on
Chinese adolescent students' achievement motivation and academic
achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Hong
Kong.
Chen, C. H. (2001). Preferred learning styles and predominant thinking styles of
Taiwanese students in accounting classes. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation,
The University of South Dakota.
Chen, C. H. (2001). Preferred learning styles and predominant thinking styles of
Taiwanese students in accounting classes. Unpublished Unpublished Ph. D
dissertation, The University of South Dakota.
Chen, G. H. (2007). University Teachers' Humor Production in the Classroom and
Student Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness. The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Chen, G. H., & Watkins, D. (2010). Can student ratings of teaching be predicted
by teaching styles? Psychological Reports, 106(2), 501-215.
276
Chen, G. H., & Zhang, L. F. (2010). Mental health and thinking styles in
Sternberg's theory: an exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 107(3),
784-794.
Chen, N. S., Shuk, K., Wei, C. W., & Liu, C. C. (2011). Effects of matching
teaching strategy to thinking style on learner's quality of reflection in an
online learning environment. Computers & Education, 56, 53-64.
Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity
and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and
cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59-68.
Chickering, A. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Choi, I., Lee, S. J., & Jung, J. W. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based
instruction accommodating students' diverse learning styles. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 5-25.
Clapp, R. G. (1993). Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications, a
longitudinal study of the kirton adaption-innovation inventory.
Psychological Reports, 73, 1235-1245.
Claxton, R. P., McIntyre, R. P., Clow, K. E., & Zemanek Jr, J. E. (1996).
Cognitive Style as a Potential Antecedent to Values. Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, 11(2), 355-373.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second
edition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A First Course in Factor Analysis. New York: Academic
Press.
Connor, J. M., Schackman, M., & Serbin, L. A. (1978). Sex related differences in
response to practice on a visual spatial test and generalization to a related
test. Child Development, 49, 24-29.
Costa, P. T., & McCare, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
277
Costa, P. T., & McCare, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R: Professional Manual.
Oddessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1998). Curricula of mutual worth：Comparisons of
students' and teachers' curricular goals. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 17, 303-326.
Cummings III, W. H. (1995). Age group differences and estimated frequencies of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator preferences. Measurement & Evaluation
in Counseling & Development, 28(2), 69-77.
Curry,
L.
(1983).
An
organization
of
learning
styles
theory
and
constructs.Unpublished manuscript.
Curry, L. (1991). Patterns of learning style across selected medical specialities.
Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 247-278.
Curry, L. (2000). Review of learning style, studying approach, and instructional
preference research in medical education. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner
(Eds.), International Perspectives on Individual Differences: Vol . 4.
Cognitive Styles. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the processes of
memorising and understanding: A comparison of the reviews of German
and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of
Educaitonal Psychology, 70, 65-84.
Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics Without Maths For Psychology: Using
SPSS for Windows. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative
model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
Davidson, G. (1990). Matching learning styles with teaching styles: Is it a useful
concept in instruction? Performance and Instruction, 29, 36-38.
Deng, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2000). Cognitive styles, scholastic attainments with the
Cattell's 16PF: A correlative approach. Psychological Science China, 23(2),
234-235.
Doi, T. (1979). Amae no Kozo. Tokyo: Kobundo.
Dollinger, S. J., Dollinger, S. M., & Centeno, L. (2005). Identity and creativity. An
International Journal of Theory and Research, 5(4), 315-339.
278
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P. H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J.
(1987). The relationship of parenting style to adolescent school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Drysdale, M. T. B., Ross, J. L., & Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles
and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses: successful
students versus students at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed
At Risk, 6(3), 271-289.
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental Social Psychology: From Infancy to Old Age.
Malden, MA.: Blackwell.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, C., Midgley, D., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer,
H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students'
motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553-574.
Ennis, C. D. (1991). Instructional strategies to facilitate the learning of
field-dependent children. Early Child Development and Care, 67, 95-109.
Ennis, C. D., Chen, A., & Fernandez-Balboa. Juan. Miguel. (1991). Cognitive
style differences within an analytical curriculum: examples of success and
nonsuccess. Early Child Development and Care, 74, 123-134.
Ennis, C. D., Chen, A., & Ross, J. L. (1992). Educational value orientations as a
theoretical framework for experienced urban teachers decision making.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25, 156-163.
Ennis, C. D., Cothran, D. J., & Loftus, S. J. (1997). The influence of teachers
educational beliefs on their knowledge organization. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 30, 73-86.
Ennis, C. D., & Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an instrument for
assessing educational value orientations. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
20, 277-280.
Ennis, C. D., & Lazarus, J.-a. C. (1990). Cognitive style and gender differences in
children's motor task performence. Early Child Development and Care, 64,
33-46.
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1982). Early Schooling: Cognitive and
Affective Outcomes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Entwistle, A., & Entwistle, N. J. (1992). Experiences of understanding in revising
for degree examinations. Learning and Instruction, 2, 1-22.
279
Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of Learning & Teaching: An Integrated Outline of
Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers, and Lecturers. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evalustions of
teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher
Education, 19, 169-194.
Entwistle, N. J., & Tate, H. (1995). Approaches to studying and perceptions of
learning environment across disciplines. In N. Hativa & M. Marincovitch
(Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for
practice (pp. 93-103). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1963). Children and Society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton and Company.
Eskadari, F., & Salehi, M. (2009). Effect of motivation and interest on relationship
between teaching-learning style and student performance. Iranian
Ariculture Extention and Education Journal., 4(2), 101-114.
Evans, C., Cools, E., & Charlesworth, Z. M. (2010). Learning in higher education:
how cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Hihger Education,
15(4), 467-478.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2008). Trainee teachers' cognitive styles and notions of
differentiation. Education and Training, 50, 140-154.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2009). The place of cognitive style in pedagogy:
Realising potential in practice. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles. New York: Springer.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2011). Student teacher assessment feedback prefernces:
The influence of cognitive styles and gender. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(271-280).
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fan, W. (2006). Thinking Styles among University Students in Shanghai:
Comparing Traditional and Hypermedia Instructional Environments.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Hong Kong.
280
Fan, W., & Ye, S. (2007). Teaching styles among shanghai teachers in primary and
secondary schools. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 255-272.
Fan, W., & Zhang, L. F. (2009). Are achievement motivation and thinking styles
related? A visit among Chinese university students. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 299-303.
Fan, W., Zhang, L. F., & Watkins, D. (2010). Incremental validity of thinking
sytles in predicting academic achievements: an experimental study in
hypermedia learning environments. Educational Psychology, 30(5),
605-623.
Farh, J. L., Leong, T. L., & Law, K. S. (1998). Cross-cultural validity of Holland's
model in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 425-440.
Farmer, H., Rotella, S., Anderson, C., & Wardrop, J. (1998). Gender differences in
science, math, and techonolgy careers: prestige level and holland interest
type. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 73-96.
Feij, J. A. (1976). Field independence, impulsiveness, high school training, and
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6),
793-799.
Fiorina, L., Antonietti, A., Clombo, B., & Bartolomeo, A. (2007). Thinking style,
browsing primes and hypermedia navigation. Computers & Education,
49(3), 916-941.
Fitzgibbon, A., Heywood, J., & Cameron, L. A. (1991). Experience Versus Theory
iin Teacher Education. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin University Press.
Fjell, A. M., & Walhovd, K. B. (2004). Thinking styles in relation to personality
traits: An investigation of the Thinking Styles Inventory and NEO-PI-R.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 293-300.
Ford, N. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An
individual
differences
approach.
International
Human-Computer Internation, 9(4), 281-311.
Journal
of
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and
learning: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 9(4), 281-312.
281
Fox, A., Stevenson, L., Connelly, P., Duff, A., & Dunlop, A. (2010).
Peer-mentoring undergraduate accounting students: The influence on
approaches to learning and academic performance. Active Learning in
higher education, 11(2), 145-156.
Fraser, W. J., Van Ede, D., Hislop-Esterhuysen, N., Owen, R., & Fraser, B. (2004).
Robert Sternberg's mental self-government theory and its contribution to
our understanding of first-year distance learners' multiple thinking style
preferences. South African Journal of Higher Education, 18(2), 206-232.
French, G., Cosgriff, T., & Brown, T. (2007). Learning style preferences of
Austrailian occupational therapy students. Australian Occupational
Therapy Journal, 54(Suppl 1), S58-S65.
Fruyt, F. D., & Mervielde, I. (1997). The five-factor model of personality and
Holland's RIASEC interest types. Personality and Individual Differences,
23(1), 87-103.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1998). Does making content relevant make a
difference in learning? Communication Research Reports, 15, 121-129.
Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. S., Linton, H. B., & Spence, D. P.
Cognitive control. A study of individual consistencies in cognitive behavior:
Part 4. Psychological issues. New York: International Universities Press.
Geiger, M. A., & Pinto, J. K. (1991). Changes in learning style preference during a
three-year longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 63(3 Pt 1), 755-762.
Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students' assessment preferences and approaches
to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational
Studies, 32(4), 401-411.
Gliddeen-Tracey, C., & Greenwood, A. K. (1997). A Validation study of the
spanish Self-Directed Search Using Back-Translation Procedures. Journal
of Career Assessment, 5(1), 105-113.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Kerr, J. R. (1991). Entrepreneurship and adaption-innovation
theory. Technovation, 11(6), 373-382.
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning appraoches and
personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context.
British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 72, 483-511.
282
Graff, M. (2003). Learning from web-based instructional systems and cognitive
style. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 407-418.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows:
Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.:
Prentice Hall.
Gridley, M. C. (2006a). Preferred thinking styles of professional fine artists.
Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 247-248.
Gridley, M. C. (2006b). Thinking styles in a sample of women engineers.
Psychological Reports, 98, 911-914.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking Styles. In D. Saklofske &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence.
New York: Plenum.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and
academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295-312.
Grusec, J. E. (1997). A history of research on parenting strategies and children's
internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting
and Children's Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary
Theory (pp. 3-22). New York: Wiley.
Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parenting socialization and children's qcquisition of values.
In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 5: Practical Issues
in Parenting. (pp. 143-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guisande, M. A., & Parmamo, M. F. (2007). Field-dependence/independence and
career counseling: directions for research. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
104, 654-662.
Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S.
(2011). Comparison of students' perceptions of their teaching-learning
environments in three professional academic disciplines: A valuable tool
for quality enhancement. Learning and Environment Research, 14,
155-169.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.
Harrison, W. D. (1997). Adult student learning style and academic major choice: A
technical institute profile. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A):
Humanities and Social Sciences, 58(06), 2026.
283
Hayashi, K. (1999). Ibunka intafeisu keiei (3rd ed.). Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai
Shinbunsha.
He, Y. F. (2006). The roles of thinking styles in learning and achievement among
Chinese university students. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Hendry, G. D., Heinrich, P., Lyon, P. M., Barratt, A. L., Simpson, J. M., Hyde, S.
S., et al. (2005). Helping students understand their learning styles: Effects
on study self-efficacy, preference for group work, and group climate.
Educational Psychology, 25(4), 395-407.
Hindin, M. J. (2005). Family dynamics, gender differences and educational
attainment in Filipino adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28(3),
299-316.
Hlawaty, H. (2008). Lernen and learning styles: a comparative analysis of the
learning styles of German adolescents by age, gender, and academic
achievement level. European Education, 40(4), 23-45.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and Feminity: The Taboo Dimension of National
Cultures. London: Sage.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making Vocational Choices: A theory of careers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational
Personalities and Work Environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned
and some new directions. American Psychologist, 51(4), 397-406.
Holland, J. L., Fritzsche, B., & Powell, A. (1994). Self-Directed Search technical
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Holland, J. L., & Gottfredson, G. D. (1975). Predictive value and psychological
meaning of vocational aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6,
349-363.
Holland, J. L., & Powell, A. (1994). Self-Directed search career explorer. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
284
Hommerding, L. (2003). Thinking style preferences among the public library
directors of Florida. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section B): The
Sciences & Engineering, 63(11B), 5545.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). American and Chinese: Passage to Differences. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Huang, J., & Chao, L. (1995). Chinese and American's students' perceptual styles
of field independence versus field dependence. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 80, 232-234.
Hytner, G. P. (1988). The effect of cognitive style and learner control on five
performance variables and attitudes in an interactive video training
program. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A): Humanities and
Social Sciences, 49(03), 485.
Jablokow, K. W., & Kirton, M. J. (2009). Problem solving, creativity, and the
level-style distinction. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual Styles (pp. 137-168). New York:
Springer Publishing Company.
Jewett, A. E., Bain, L. L., & Ennis, C. D. (1995). The Curriculum Process in
Physical Education. Madison: Brown & Benchmark.
Jorge, F. (1990). A comparison of learning style preferences between seventh- and
eighth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Loma Linda University, 1990)
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(10), 3365A.
Jung, C. (1923). Psychological types. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kagan, D. M. (1989). Inquiry mode, occupational stress, and preferred leadership
style among American elementary school teachers. Journal of Social
Psychology, 129(3), 297-305.
Kagan, J. (1964). The child sex role classificalion of school object. Child
Development, 35, 1051-1056.
Kanske, C. A. (1998). The learning styles of pilots currently qualified in United
States Air Force aircraft. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A):
Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(02), 334.
Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth.
American Journal of Education, 106(3), 349-384.
285
Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Thinking styles in creative writers and journalists.
Dissertation Abstracts International (Section B): The Sciences &
Engineering, 62(3B), 1069.
Kelley, M. L., Power, G. T., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of
disciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers. Child Development,
63, 573-582.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another
approach to learning? Higher Education, 31, 341-354.
Kember, D. (2004). Interpreting student workload and the factors which shape
students' perceptions of their workload. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2),
165-184.
Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott, V. (1997).
Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: using the Study
Process Questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 22, 141-157.
Khan, S. B., & Alvi, S. A. (1986). A Study of Validation and Structure of Holland's
Theory of Career. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Khan, S. B., & Alvi, S. A. (1991). The structure of Holland's typology: a study in
a non-western culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(2),
283-292.
Khan, S. B., Alvi, S. A., & Kwong, S. L. (1985). Field-dependence and
field-independence cognitive styles of intermediate and high school
students in relation to differences in age/grade, gender, and academic and
vocational orientations. Toronto, Canada: The Ontario Insitute for Studies
in Education.
Khangaghi, M. A., & Rajaei, M. (2011). The comparison of students and
educators preferred teaching styles in teacher educating centres. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1875-1880.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.
Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and
Change. . New York: Routledge.
286
Kirwin, M. J. (1999). The influence of mental self-government thinking style on
divorce counseling outcome. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Seton Hall
University, New Jersey.
Klahrl, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early
science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning.
Psychological Science, 15, 661-667.
Klinger, T. H. (2006). Learning approach, thinking style and critical inquiry: The
online community. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 16(1),
91-113.
Knight, J. (2010). Distinguishing the learning approaches adopted by
undergraduates in their use of online resources. Active Learning in higher
education, 11(1), 67-76.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Style Inventory Manual. Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experiences as the Source of Learning
and Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Merrienboer, J. J. G. v. (2010). An approach
to participatory instructional design in secondary education: an exploratory
study. Educational Research, 52(1), 45-59.
Koo, M., & Choi, I. (2005). Becoming a holistic thinker: Training effect of
oriental medicine on reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31(9), 1264-1272.
Korthauer, R. D., & Koubek, R. J. (1994). An empirical evaluation of knowledge,
cognitive style, structure upon the performance of a hypertext task.
International Journal of Human-Computer Internation, 6(4), 373-390.
Lam-Phoon, S. (1986). A comparative study of the learning styles of Southeast
Asian and American Caucasian college students of two Seventh-day
Adventist campuses (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1988).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(09), 2234A.
Laosa, L. M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies and cognitive styles in Chicano
families. Journal of Education Psychology, 72, 45-54.
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2001). Meta-analyses of big six
interests and big five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
61, 217-239.
287
Lee, C. I., & Tsai, F. Y. (2004). Internet project-based learning environment: the
effects of thinking styles on learning transfer. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 20(1), 31-39.
Lee, K. L. (2002). Thinking styles and approaches in teaching among Hong Kong
kindergarten teachers. Unpublished Manuscript. The University of Hong
Kong.
Leung, S. A., & Hou, Z. J. (2001). Concurrent validity of the 1994 Self-Directed
Search for Chinese High School Students in Hong Kong. Journal of
Career Assessment, 9(3), 283-296.
Lin, S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment:
Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420-432.
Linden, W. (1973). Practicing of meditation by school children and their levels of
field dependence-independence, test anxiety, and reading achievement.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41(1), 139-143.
Linowes, R. G. (1993). The Japanese manager's traumatic entry into the United
States: Understanding the American-Japanese cultural divide. Academy of
Management Executive, 7(4), 21-40.
Liu, Y. L. (2007). A comparative study of learning styles between online and
traditional students. Journal of Education Computing Research, 37(1),
41-63.
Lizzo, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of
the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory
and practice. Studies in Higher Education Volume, 27(1), 27-52
Loh, A. V.-H. (1990). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles of
school principals in Singapore and their implications for shared
decision-making. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A):
Humanities and Social Sciences, 51(06), 1853.
Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its
development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino
language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools.
Harvard Education Review, 60, 315-340.
288
Luster, T., Rhoades, K., & Haas, B. (1989). The relation between parental values
and parenting behavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 51, 139-147.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington & P. H. Mussen (Eds.),
Handbook of Child Psychology: Socialization, Personality, and Social
Development (Vol. 4, pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
McIntyre, R. P., Claxton, R. P., & Jones, D. B. (1994). Empirical relationships
between cognitive style and LOV:implications for values and values
systems. Advances in Consumer Research Volume, 21, 141-146.
McLaughlin, D. H., & Tiedeman, D. V. (1974). Eleven-year career stability and
changes as reflected in project talent data through the Flagan, Holland, and
Roe occupational classification systems. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5,
177-196.
McMurray, D. (1988). Learning styles and organizational behavior in Japanese
EFL classrooms. Journal of Fukui Prefecture University, 13, 29-43.
Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating
personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research
Journal, 17(2-3), 155-166.
Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: manifestations of personality in cognition,
learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 121-136.
Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., & Dunne, T. T. (1990). Individual study orchestration
and their association with outcome. Higher Education, 20, 67-89.
Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: An integrated model. Educational Psychology,
7(4), 251-268.
Miller, C. D., Finley, J., & MckKinley, D. L. (1990). Learning approaches and
motives: Male and female differences and implications for learning
assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31(2),
147-154.
Miller, L. M. (2005). Using learning styles to evaluate computer-based instruction.
Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 287-306.
Miller, M. J. (1994). Congruence between parents' and children's three-letter
Holland Codes. Psychological Reports, 74, 1387-1390.
289
Mitchell, T., & Cahill, A. M. (2005). Cognitive style and plebe turnover at the US
Naval Academy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 55-62.
Mitsis, A., & Foley, P. W. (2009). Do business students' culturally anchored values
shape student-driven or teacher-driven learning style preferences? Journal
of Marketing Education, 31(3), 240-252.
Morgan, H. (1997). Cognitive styles and classroom learning. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Munley, P. H. (1975). Erik Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development and
Vocational Behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(4), 314-319.
Murdock, M. C., Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (1993). Creativity training and the
stability and internal consistency of the Kirton adaption-innovation
inventory. Psychological Reports, 72(3C), 1123-1130.
Murphy, A. (2007). A comparison of the emotional intelligence and thinking styles
of students in different university study fields. Unpublished Master,
University of South Africa (South Africa), South Africa.
Murphy, A., & Janeke, H. C. (2008). The relationship between thinking styles and
emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. South African Journal of
Psychology, 39(3), 357-375.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1988). Manual: A guide to development and
use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and
verbal aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research
Reports, 17, 299-309.
Newble, D. I., & Clarke, R. M. (1986). The approaches to learning of students in a
traitional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Medical
Education, 20(4), 267-273.
Newble, D. I., & Jaeger, K. (1983). The effect of assessments and examinations
on the learning of medical students. Medical Education, 17(3), 165-171.
Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late
childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25,
223-249.
290
Nijhuis, J. F. H., Segers, M. S. R., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Influence of
redesigning a learning environment on student perceptions and learning
strategies. Learning and Environment Research, 8, 67-93.
Noah, S. M. (2001). Assesment in counselling. Serdang: FPP publication: Faculty
of education study.
Nugent, P. S. (1981). Management and modes of thought. Organizational
Dynamics, 9(4), 44-59.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Okabayashi, H., & Torrance, P. (1984). Role of style of learning and thinking and
self directed learning readiness in the achievement of gifted students.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(2), 104-107.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Damme, J. V. (2006). Teachers characteristics and teaching
styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practices. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 22, 1-21.
Paivio, A. (1971). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 128-148.
Park, S. K., Park, K. H., & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship between thinking
styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. The Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 16(2/3), 87-97.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and
ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The Handbook of Child
Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. (5th ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 463-552). New York: Wiley.
Peterson, E. R., Rayner, S. G., & Armstrong, S. J. (2009). Researching the
psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future?
Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 518-523.
Pizzo, J., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1990). A sound approach to reading: Responding
to students' learning styles. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning
Disabilities International, 6, 249-260.
Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2008). Variation in teachers; descriptions of
teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 109-120.
291
Proctor, B. E. (2000). Cognitive style and achievement: Student performance on
the Thinking Styles Inventory, Raven's progressive matrices, Iowa Test of
Basic Skills, and the FLORIDA WRITES. Dissertation Abstracts
International (Section A): Humanities and Social Sciences, 60/09, 3334.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The
experience in higher education. Suffolk, UK: Society for Research into
Higher Education & Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic
environment. Higher Education, 22, 411-427.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1998). The self-directed search and related
Holland career materials: a practitioner's guide. Odessa: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Reis, S. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the
special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83-89.
Renzulli, J. S., & Dai, D. Y. (2001). Abilities, Interests, and Styles as Aptitiudes
for Learning: A Person-Situation Interaction Perspective. In R. J. Sternberg
& L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive
Styles (pp. 1-276). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Renzulli, J. S., & Sullivan, E. E. (2009). Learning Styles applied: Harnessing
students' instructional style preferences. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual Styles (pp. 209-231).
New York: NJ: Springer Publishing Company.
Riding, R. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1
& 2), 29-49.
Riding, R. (2005). Individual differences and educational performance.
Educational Psychology, 25(6), 659-672.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive Styles--an overview and integration.
Educational Psychology, 11(3 & 4), 197-216.
292
Riding, R., & Fairhurst, P. (2001). Cognitive style, home background and conduct
behavior in primary school pupils. Educational Psychology, 21(1),
115-124.
Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from
multi-media materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 30, 43-56.
Riding, R., Grimley, M., Dahraei, H., & Banner, G. (2003). Cognitive style,
working memory and learning behavior and attainment in school subjects.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 149-169.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies:
Understand Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Roberts, O. A. (1984). An investigation of the relationship between learning style
and temperament of senior high students in the Bahamas and Jamaica.
Masters Abstracts International, 2303.
Rousson, V., Gasser, T., & Seifert, B. (2002). Assessing intrarater, interrater and
test-retest reliability of continuous measurements. Statistics in Medicine,
21(22), 3431-3446.
Ruble, T. L. (1990). A psychometric analysis of Kolb's Revised Learning-Style
Inventory. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of ABSEL, 17,
147-149.
Ruscio, A., & Amabile, T. (1999). Effects of instructional style on
problem-solving creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 251-266.
Rush, G. M., & Moore, D. M. (1991). Effects of restructuring training and
cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 309-322.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Approaches to studying: age, gender and academic
performance. Educational Studies, 22(3), 367-379.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1999). Intuition-analysis style and approaches to studying.
Educational Studies, 25(2), 159-173.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Tsang, F. (1998). A comparative study of approaches to
studying in Hong Kong and the United Kindom. British Journal of
Educaitonal Psychology, 68, 81-93.
293
Salder-Smith, E. (1997). "Learning style": frameworks and instruments.
Educational Psychology, 17, 51-63.
Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). But is it fair? An exploratory
study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 349-371.
Saracho, O. N. (1983). Cultural differences in the cognitive style of Mexican
American students. Journal of Association for the Study of Perception,
18(1), 3-10.
Saracho, O. N. (1990). The match and mismatch of teachers and students'
cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care, 54, 99-109.
Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers' and Students' Cognitive Styles in Early
Childhood Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Saracho, O. N., & Gerstl, C. K. (1992). Learning differences among at-risk
minority students. In J. W. Felix, J. E. Anderson & H. P. Baptiste (Eds.),
Improving The Education of At-rist Students (pp. 105-135). Newbury Park,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Scouller, K. (1996). Influence of assessment method on students' learning
approaches, perceptions and preferences: The assignment essay versus the
short answer examination. Paper presented at the HERDSA, Perth,
Australia.
Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students' experiences in studying for multiple
choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267-279.
Segers, M. S. R., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). Optimizing New Modes of
Assessment: In Search For Qualities and Standards. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Segers, M. S. R., Nijhuis, J. F. H., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2006). Redesigning a
learning and assessment environment: the influence on students'
perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 32, 223-242.
Seginer, R. (1983). Parents' educational expectations and children's academic
achievements: A literature review. Merril-Palmer Q., 29, 1-29.
Serife, A. K. (2008). A Conceptual Analysis on the Approaches to Learning.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 8(3), 707-720.
294
Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender differences in learning
styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis. High Education,
27, 478-501.
Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1997). Gender and gender identity
differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1 & 2), 79-94.
Shahla, A., & Ostovar, S. (2007). Thinking styles of gifted and nongifted students
in Iran. Psychological Reports, 100(3, Pt2), 1076-1082.
Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., & Dember, D. (2000). An implementation
of active learning and its effect on the quality of stuent learning.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 381-389.
Smith, D. M., & Kolb, D. A. (1986). User's guide for the Learning-Style Inventory:
A manual for teachers and trainers. . Boston: McBer.
Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices,
parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(2), 125-146.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship.
In S. Feldman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the Threshold: The Developing
Adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in
adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American
Psychologist, 47(6), 723-729.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of Parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 103-133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles
and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership,
52(3), 36-40.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1993). Thinking styles and the gifted.
Roeper Review, 16(2), 122-130.
295
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school.
European Journal for High Ability, 6, 201-219.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?
American Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory. Unpublished
test. Yale University.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2003). Thinking Styles
Inventory-Revised I. Unpublished test. Yale University.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking Styles
Inventory-Revised II. Unpublished test. Yale University.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. (3 ed.).
Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stillwell, J., & Willgoose, C. (1997). The physical education curriculum. MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of
students' approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning
environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279-294.
Sun, C. C. (2000). Thinking styles and academic achievement. Unpublished
Manuscript. The University of Hong Kong.
Swindler, M. (2008). Effects of teacher training for individual differences to
improve the academic performance of special education inclusion students.
Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A): Humanities and Social
Sciences, 68(9-A), 3803.
Talib, J. A., Ariff, A. M., & Salleh, A. (2010). The effects of career intervention
program on community college students' career development. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 7(C), 629-634.
Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation
strategies. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving Student Learning: Theory and
Practice (pp. 151-170). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Tang, M. (2001). Investigation of the structure of vocational interests of Chinese
college students. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(4), 365-379.
296
Tang, M. (2009). Examining the application of Holland's theory to vocational
interests and choices of Chinese college students. Journal of Career
Assessment, 17(1), 86-98.
Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Taylor, J. A. (1994). Stability of schoolchildren's cognitive style: a longitudinal
study of the kirton adapton-innovation inventory. Psychological Reports,
74, 1008-1010.
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher
caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication
Education, 46, 1-9.
Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual dependence of learning
approaches: the effects of assessments. Human Learning, 22, 227-240.
Thomas, R., & Chickering, A. W. (1984). Education and identity revisited.
Journal of College Student Development, 25, 392-399.
Thomson, K., & Falchikov, N. (1998). Full on Until the Sun Comes Out: the
effects of assessment on student approaches to studying.
Assessment&Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 379-390.
Tiedeman, D. V., & O' Hara, R. P. (1963). Career Development: Choice and
Adjustment. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Implications of whole-brained theories of learning and
thinking for computer-based instruction. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 7(4), 99-105.
Torrance, P. (1988). Style of leaerning and thinking: Administrator's manual.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torres, R. M., & Cano, J. (1995). Critical thinking as influenced by learning style.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(4), 55-61.
Tracey, T. J., Watanabe, N., & Schneider, P. L. (1997). Structural invariance of
vocational interests across Japanese and American cultures. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 44(4), 346-354.
Tracey, T. J. G., Watanabe, N., & Schneider, P. L. (1997). Structural invariance of
vocational interests across Japanese and American cultures. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 44, 346-354.
297
Traintafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the
formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cogn
itive styles. Computers & Education, 41(1), 87-103.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The
influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on
learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251-266.
Tsagaris, G. S. (2006). The relationships between thinking style preferences,
cultural orientations and academic achievement. Cleveland State
University, United States.
Tseng, W. S., Cheng, S. C., & Nishizono, M. (Eds.). (2005). Asian Culture and
Psychotherapy: Implications for East and West. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.
Turner, S. L., & Lapan, R. T. (2002). Career self-efficacy and perceptions of
parent support in adolescent career development. The Career Development
Quarterly, 51(1), 44-54.
Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a
constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university.
International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 355-442.
Volet, S. E., Renshaw, P. D., & Tietzel, K. (1994). A short-term longitudinal
investigation of cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs'
SPQ questionnaire. British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 64,
301-318.
Volpentesta, A. P., Ammirato, S., & Sofo, F. (2010). Experiential Collaborative
Learning and Preferential Thinking. Tech-Edcuation, 73, 230-236.
Walker, R., Spronken-Smith, R., Bond, C., McDonald, F., Reynolds, J., &
McMartin, A. (2010). The impact of curriculum change on health sciences
first year students' approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 38,
707-722.
Watkins, D. (2004). Teachers as scholars of their students' conceptions of learning:
A Hong Kong investigation. . British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology,
74, 361-373.
298
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese Learner: Cultural,
Psychological, and Contextual Influences. Hong Kong/ Melbourne:
Comparative Education Research Centre/ Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal
relationships: Implications for understanding students' academic success.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.
Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments
on students' approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action
learning designs. Assesment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1),
87-101.
Wilson, K., Lizzo, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and
application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher
Education, 22(1), 33-53.
Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Dvelopment. New
York: Wiley.
Witkin, H. A. (1964). Origins of cognitive style. In C. Sheerer (Ed.), Cognition,
theory, research, promise (pp. 172-205). New York: Harper & Row.
Witkin, H. A., & Berry, J. W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in
cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 6, 4-87.
Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., & Bommer, W. (2003). The effects of cognitive
style and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 199-219.
Yamazaki, Y. (2004). An experimental approach to cross-cultural adaption: A
study of Japanese expatriates' learning styles, learning skills, and job
satisfaction in the United States. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Case
Western Reserve University.
Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: A
theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29, 521-548.
Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2005). Expatriate learning: exploring how
Japanese managers adapt in the United States. Paper presented at the The
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.
299
Yang, S. C., & Lin, W. C. (2004). The relationship among creative, creatical
thinking and thinking styles in Taiwan high school students. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 33-45.
Yang, W. W., Lance, C. E., & Hui, H. C. (2006). Psychometric properties of the
Chinese Self-Directed Search (1994 edition). Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 560-576.
Yang, W. W., Stoke, G. S., & Hui, H. C. (2005). Cross-cultural validation of
Holland's interest instructure in chinese population. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 67, 379-396.
Yanmamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. (2010). Parental Expectations and Children's
Academic Performance in Sociocultural Context. Educational Psychology
Review, 22, 189-214.
Yeh, Y. C. (2007). Aptitude-treatment interactions in preservice teachers' behavior
change during computer-simulated teaching. Computers & Education, 48,
495-507.
Yu, J., & Alvi, S. A. (1996). A study of Holland's typology in China. Journal of
Career Assessment, 4, 245-252.
Yu, K. (1997). The effects of cognitive tempo and training in a hypermedia
learning environment on navigation patterns, learning achievement, and
self-efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section A): Humanities
and Social Sciences, 57(11-A), 4705.
Yu, T. M. (2012). Does teacher's teaching affect students' thinking styles and
learning achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Hong Kong.
Yuen, C., & Lee, S. N. (1994). Applicability of the learning style inventory in an
Asian context and its predictive value. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 54(2), 541-549.
Zeegers, P. (2001). Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study.
British Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 71(1), 115-132.
Zhang, L. F. (2004). Predicting cognitive development, intellectual styles, and
personality traits from self-rated abilities. Learning and individual
Differences, 15, 67-88.
300
Zhang, L. F., Jiao, B., & Postiglione, G. A. (2004). Thinking Styles, Culture, and
Economy: Comparing Tibetan and Han Chinese University Students.
Paper presented at the The International Conference on Achieving
Diversity in Tertiary and Higher Education: Cross-National Lessons,
Challenges, and Prospects.
Zhang, L. F. (1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental
self-government. The Journal of Psychology, 133(2), 165-181.
Zhang, L. F. (2000a). Are thinking styles and personality types related?
Educational Psychology, 20(3), 271-283.
Zhang, L. F. (2000b). University students' learning approaches in three cultures:an
investigation of Biggs's 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1),
37-55.
Zhang, L. F. (2001a). Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement
beyond self-rated abilities? The Journal of Psychology, 135(6), 621-637.
Zhang, L. F. (2001b). Thinking styles and personality types revisited. Personality
and Individual Differences, 31, 883-894.
Zhang, L. F. (2001c). Thinking styles, self-esteem, and extracurricular experiences.
International Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 100-107.
Zhang, L. F. (2002a). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring
personality traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445-458.
Zhang, L. F. (2002b). The role of thinking styles in psychosocial development.
Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 696-711.
Zhang, L. F. (2002c). Thinking styles and cognitive development. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 179-195.
Zhang, L. F. (2002d). Thinking styles and modes of thinking: implications for
education and research. The Journal of Psychology, 136(3), 245-261.
Zhang, L. F. (2002e). Thinking styles: their relationships with modes of thinking
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331-347.
Zhang, L. F. (2003a). Contributions of thinking styles to critical thinking
dispositions. The Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 517-544.
Zhang, L. F. (2003b). Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory.
Unpublished test. The University of Hong Kong.
301
Zhang, L. F. (2004a). Contributions of thinking styles to vocational purpose
beyond self-rated abilities. Psychological Reports, 94, 697-714.
Zhang, L. F. (2004b). Learning approaches and career personality types: Biggs
and Holland united. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 65-81.
Zhang, L. F. (2004c). Predicting cognitive development, intellectual styles, and
personality traits from self-rated abilities. Learning and Individual
Differences, 15, 67-88.
Zhang, L. F. (2004d). Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles for
academic performance. The Journal of Psychology, 138(4), 351-370.
Zhang, L. F. (2004e). Thinking styles: university students' preferred teaching
styles and their conceptions of effective teachers. The Journal of
Psychology, 138(3), 233-252.
Zhang, L. F. (2006a). Preferred teaching styles and modes of thinking among
university students in mainland China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1,
95-107.
Zhang, L. F. (2006b). Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory.
Unpublished test. The University of Hong Kong.
Zhang, L. F. (2007a). From career personality types to preferences for teachers'
teaching styles: a new perspective on style match. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43(7), 1863-1874.
Zhang, L. F. (2007b). From career personality types to preferences for teachers'
teaching styles: A new perspective on style match. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 1863-1874.
Zhang, L. F. (2007c). Intellectual styles and academic achievement among senior
secondary school students in rural china. Educational Psychology, 27(5),
675-692.
Zhang, L. F. (2008). Preferences for teaching styles matter in academic
achievement: scientific and practical implications. Educational Psychology,
28(6), 615-625.
Zhang, L. F. (2008). Teachers' Styles of Thinking: An Exploratory Study. Journal
of Psychology, 142(1), 37-55.
302
Zhang, L. F. (2010a). Do age and gender make a difference in the relationship
between intellectual styles and abilities? European Journal Psycholocy
Education, 25, 87-103.
Zhang, L. F. (2010b). Further investigating thinking styles and psychosocial
development in the Chinese higher education context. Learning and
Individual Differences, 20, 593-603.
Zhang, L. F. (2011). The developing field of intellectual styles: Four recent
endeavours. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 311-318.
Zhang, L. F. (2011). Teaching styles and conceptions of effective teachers: Tibetan
and Han Chinese academics compared. Learning and Individual
Differences.
Zhang, L. F., & Fan, W. (2007). Do modes of thinking predict career interest types
among Chinese university students? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2),
118-127.
Zhang, L. F., Fu, H., & Jiao, B. (2008). Accounting for Tibetan university
students' and teachers' intellectual styles. Educational Review, 60(1),
21-37.
Zhang, L. F., & He, Y. F. (2003). Do thinking styles matter in the use of and
attitudes toward computing and information technology among Hong
Kong university students. Journal of Education Computing Research,
29(4), 471-493.
Zhang, L. F., & He, Y. F. (2011). Thinking styles and the Eriksonian Stages.
Journal of Adult Development, 18, 8-17.
Zhang, L. F., & Higgins, P. (2008). The predictive power of socialization variables
for thinking styles among adults in the workplace. Learning and
Individual Differences, 18, 11-18.
Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. F. (2001). Thinking styles and the five-factor model of
personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 465-476.
Zhang, L. F., Huang, J. F., & Zhang, L. L. (2005). Preferences in teaching styles
among Hong Kong and US university students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 39, 1319-1331.
303
Zhang, L. F., & Postiglione, G. A. (2001). Thinking styles, self-esteem, and
socio-economic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31,
1333-1346.
Zhang, L. F., & Sachs, J. (1997). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental
self-government: A Hong Kong validity study. Psychological Reports, 81,
915-928.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Are learning approaches and thinking
styles related? A study in two chinese populations. The Journal of
Psychology, 134(58), 469-489.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: their
relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles (pp. 197-226).
Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teachers'
characteristics. International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 3-12.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A Threefold model of intellectual styles.
Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1-53.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Intellectual Styles. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, Y., Haddad, E., Torres, B., & Chen, C. (2011). The reciprocal relationships
among parents' expectations, adolescents' expectations, and adolescents'
achievement: a two-wave longitudinal analysis of the NELS Data. Journal
of Youth Adolescence, 40, 479-489.
Zigarovich, K. L., & Myers, S. A. (2011). The relationship between perceived
instructor communicative characteristics and college students'
conflict-handling styles. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(1), 11-16.
304
Appendix A Sample items from the PTSLI and their Chinese translations
English version:
As a teacher, I would like my students to learn in these ways：They
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
develop their own ways of solving problems. (Legislative style)
compare and rate different ways of doing things. (Judicial style)
figure out how to solve a problem following certain rules. (Executive style)
stick to one main idea when they have to talk or write about ideas.
(Monarchic style)
make a list of things to do and to order the things by importance when they
start something. (Hierarchical style)
6.
7.
8.
prefer to deal with specific problems. (Local style)
tend to pay little attention to details. (Global style)
control all phases of a project, without having to consult others. (Internal
style)
9. like to brainstorm ideas with friends or peers when they start a task. (External
style)
10. challenge old ideas or ways of doing thinks and to seek better ones. (Liberal
style)
11. stick to standard rules and ways of doing things. (Conservative style)
Chinese translations:
作為一名教師，我喜歡學生使用這樣的學習風格：他們
1. 用自己的想法和策略去解決問題。(立法型)
2. 喜歡那些能夠讓他們比較和評價各種做事方法的環境。(司法型)
3. 根據一定的規則找出解決的問題方法。(行政型)
4. 無論以口頭還是書面的形式表達思想，都一次只圍繞一個主題進行。(君
主型)
5. 在開始做事之前先把需要處理的事情按先後次序排列好。(階層型)
6. 擅於解決那些需要他們處理很多細節的問題。(局部型)
7. 很少注重細節。(整體型)
8.
9.
10.
11.
對一項工作全面負責，而不與他人商討。(內在型)
著手完成某一任務時，與朋友們或同伴們一起探討。(外在型)
向舊的想法或做法提出挑戰，並尋求更好的解決方法。(自由型)
堅持做事的標準規則或方法。(保守型)
305
Appendix B Sample items from the PTSTI and their Chinese translations
English version:
As a student, I would like my teacher to teach in these ways：They
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
frequently assign students independent projects. (Legislative style)
to compare various students’ progress. (Judicial style)
always make sure that their students follow their directions precisely.
(Executive style)
get students focused on one task at a time. (Monarchic style)
always gives students a sense of priority about the materials that he/she
presents in class. (Hierarchical style)
6.
must give his or her pupils a lot of concrete and detailed information about
the subject being taught. (Local style)
7. focus on increasing the conceptual as opposed to the factual content of their
lessons. (Global style)
8. carries out his/her own ideas without relying on others. (Internal style)
9. often participates in activities where he/she can interact with other colleagues
and students. (External style)
10. select new materials to teaching the subjects. (Liberal style)
11. should keep close to topics, tests, and methods of teaching that have proven
successful in the past. (Conservative style)
Chinese translations:
作為一名學生，我喜歡教師使用這樣的學習風格：他們
1. 常常分派學生去做一些他們可以獨立完成的課題。(立法型)
2. 比較學生之間學習的進展狀況。(司法型)
3. 要求學生嚴格遵循他們的指導。(行政型)
4. 教學生每次把注意力集中在一個主題上。(君主型)
5. 讓學生認識到課堂内容中哪些是重要的，哪些則不太重要。(階層型)
6. 針對教授的課程，向學生提供大量具體而詳細的知識。(局部型)
7. 在課堂上增加一些概念性知識，而不是只提供具體的事實性材料。(整體
型)
8. 獨立地實現自己的想法，而不需要依賴於他人。(內在型)
9. 經常參加能與其他老師或學生進行溝通或者互動的活動。(外在型)
10. 根據學科需要，及時選擇最新的材料運用到教學當中。(自由型)
11. 應用那些已被証明是成功的課題、測驗、和教學方法。(保守型)
306
Appendix C Sample items from the TSI-R2 and their Chinese translations
English version:
I would like to learn in these ways：
1.
2.
3.
4.
I like to play with my ideas and see how far they go. (Legislative style)
I like situations where I can compare and rate different ways of doing things.
(Judicial style)
I enjoy working on things that I can do by following directions. (Executive
style)
When talking or writing about ideas, I prefer to focus on one idea at a time.
(Monarchic style)
5.
I like to set priorities for the things I need to do before I start doing them.
(Hierarchical style)
6. I prefer to deal with problems that require me to attend to a lot of details.
(Local style)
7. I tend to pay little attention to details. (Global style)
8. I like to control all phases of a project, without having to consult with others.
(Internal style)
9. When starting a task, I like to brainstorm ideas with friends or peers.
(External style)
10. When faced with a problem, I prefer to try new strategies or methods to solve
it. (Liberal style)
11. I stick to standard rules or ways of doing things. (Conservative style)
Chinese translations:
我在學習時，喜歡使用這樣的學習風格：
1. 我喜歡實踐自己的想法，看它們能起多大作用。(立法型)
2. 我喜歡那些能夠讓我比較和評價各種做事方法的環境。(司法型)
3. 我喜歡做那些已有明確指示的事情。(行政型)
4. 無論以口頭還是書面的形式表達思想，我都喜歡一次只圍繞一個主題進
行。(君主型)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
我喜歡在開始做事之前，先把要處理的事情按先後次序排列好。(階層型)
我喜歡解決那些需要處理很多細節的問題。(局部型)
我很少注重細節。(整體型)
我喜歡對一項工作全面負責，而不必要與他人商討。(內在型)
當我要完成一項任務時，我喜歡與朋友們或同伴們一起探討。(外在型)
10. 當面臨一個問題時，我喜歡用新的策略或方法去解決它。(自由型)
11. 我堅持做事的標準規則或方法。(保守型)
307
Appendix D Sample items from the SDS and their Chinese translations
English version
Part A: Activities
1. Build things with wood (Realistic type)
2. Work on a scientific project (Investigative type)
3. Sketch, draw, or paint (Artistic type)
4. Work for a charity (Social type)
5. Supervise the work of others (Enterprising type)
6. Take an Accounting course (Convention type)
Part B: Competencies
1. Change a car’s oil or tire (Realistic type)
2. Write a scientific report (Investigative type)
3. Play a musical instrument (Artistic type)
4. Talk with all kinds of people (Social type)
5. Manage a sales campaign (Enterprising type)
6. Write business letters (Convention type)
Part C: Occupations
1. Carpenter (Realistic type)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Scientific Research Worker (Investigative type)
Novelist (Artistic type)
Speech Therapist (Social type)
Business Executive (Enterprising type)
Bookkeeper (Convention type)
Part D: Self Estimates Abilities
1. Mechanical Ability (Realistic type)
2. Scientific Ability (Investigative type)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Artistic Ability (Artistic type)
Teaching Ability (Social type)
Sales Ability (Enterprising type)
Clerical Ability (Convention type)
308
Chinese translations:
第一部份：興趣
1. 木工製作 (實用型)
2. 進行科學實驗/化驗工作 (研究型)
3. 素描、寫生或繪畫 (藝術型)
4. 參與社會福利活動 (社會型)
5. 領導/指揮/監督他人工作 (企業型)
6. 學習會計課程 (常規型)
第二部份：能力
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
給汽車加油、更換車胎 (實用型)
進行及撰寫調查及研究(研究型)
演奏樂器 (藝術型)
與各種人交談 (社會型)
製作銷售計劃 (企業型)
撰寫商務信函 (常規型)
第三部份：喜歡職業
1. 木匠 (實用型)
2. 科學/社會科學研究人員 (研究型)
3.
4.
5.
6.
小說家 (藝術型)
言語治療師 (社會型)
機構行政人員 (企業型)
簿記員 (常規型)
第四部份：技能
1. 機修技能 (實用型)
2. 科技技能 (研究型)
3. 藝術技能 (藝術型)
4. 教學技能 (社會型)
5. 銷售技能 (企業型)
6. 文書技能 (常規型)
309
Appendix E Sample reports for teachers and students after the pre-test
Report for teacher
310
Report for student
311
Appendix F Sample activity from the training workshop
312
313
314
Appendix G Sample report for class observation
315
316
317
318
319
320
Appendix H Sample reports for teachers and students after the post-test
321
Appendix I Exposition of the post-test report
The figure bellowed shows the explanation of the bar chat for the TSI-R2.
The figure bellowed shows the explanation of the table for the SDS.
322