thinking styles and teachers' characteristics

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 37 (1), 3–12

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Li-fang Zhang, Department of Education, The University of Hong Kong,Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong (Tel/Fax: (852)2859-2522 ; E-mail: [email protected]).

Research for this project was supported in part by the Wu Jieh-Yee Research Fund as administered by The University of HongKong.

Preparation of this article was supported in part under the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R50001) as administered by theOf� ce of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouragedto express freely their professional judgment. This article, therefore, does not necessarily represent the position or policies of the Of� ceof Educational Research and Improvement or the US Department of Education, and no of� cial endorsement should be inferred.

Ó 2002 International Union of Psychological Sciencehttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.htm l DOI: 10.1080/00207590143000171

Thinking styles and teachers’ characteristics

Li-fang Zhang Robert J. SternbergThe University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Yale University, New Haven, USA

This study had two goals. The � rst was to validate further Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government in a cross-cultural set-ting. The second was to investigate the relationship between thinking styles and teachers’ characteristics. Research participantswere one hundred ninety-three (65 male and 128 female) in-service teachers studying in the Bachelor of Education degree pro-gram and the Postgraduate Certi� cate in Education program at the University of Hong Kong. The participants responded tothe Chinese version of the Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers (TSQT) that has its theoretical foundation inSternberg’s theory of mental self-government. They also provided a range of demographic information such as age, gender,family income, and duration of their teaching experience. Furthermore, they rated themselves on a 5-point Likert scale abouttheir teaching practices and about their perceptions of their school environment. The results of the study showed that theTSQT is a reliable and valid inventory for assessing the thinking styles of primary and secondary school in-service teachers inHong Kong. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .58 to .75, with a mean of .68 and a median of .66. A principal-axis factor analy-sis followed by an oblique rotation resulted in two factors that accounted for 73.8% of the variance in the data. Moreover,results from stepwise multiple-regression procedures indicated that six characteristics of teachers were signi� cantly correlatedwith the thinking styles speci� ed by the theory of mental self-government. These teacher characteristics are gender, profes-sional work experience outside school settings, the degree of enjoying adopting new teaching materials, a tendency for usinggroup projects in assessing student achievement, perceived autonomy for determining their teaching contents, and their ratingof the quality of their students. We discussed seven possibilities for using the knowledge about thinking styles to facilitate anenhancement of teaching and learning.

Cette étude a eu deux objectifs. Le premier était de valider la théorie de Sternberg sur l’autogestion mentale dans un contextetransculturel. Le second était de rechercher la relation entre les styles de pensée et les caractéristiques des enseignants. Centquatre-vingt-treize enseignants stagiaires (65 hommes et 128 femmes), en poste dans le cadre du programme du second cycleet du programme du Diplôme de troisième cycle en Education de l’Université de Hong Kong, ont participé à cette recherche.Les participants ont répondu à la version chinoise du Questionnaire de Styles de Pensée des Enseignants (Thinking StylesQuestionnaire for Teachers, TSQT), qui a comme support théorique la théorie de Sternberg de l’autogestion mentale. Ils ontégalement fourni de l’information démographique, telle que: âge, sexe, revenu de la famille et ancienneté en tant qu’enseignant.Ils ont de même évalué sur une échelle de 5 points du type de Likert leur propre pratique de l’enseignement et leur perceptionde l’ambiance scolaire. Les résultats de l’étude ont montré que le TSQT est un inventaire � able et valable pour l’évaluationdes styles de pensée des enseignants stagiaires du primaire et du secondaire en fonction à Hong Kong. Les valeurs Alphade Cronbach se répartissent de .58 à .75, avec une moyenne de .68 et une médiane de .66. L’analyse factorielle des axesprincipaux, suivie d’une rotation oblique, a donné comme résultat deux facteurs qui expliquent les 73.8% de variation desdonnées. De plus, les résultats des procédés de régression multiple, pas à pas, ont indiqué des corrélations signi� cativesentre six caractéristiques des enseignants et leurs styles de pensée spéci� és par la théorie de l’autogestion mentale. Cescaractéristiques des enseignants sont: le sexe, l’expérience professionnelle en dehors du cadre scolaire, le niveau de satisfactionà employer de nouveaux supports pédagogiques, une tendance à l’utilisation des projets de groupe pour évaluer la réussite desélèves, l’autonomie perçue par le stagiaire pour déterminer leur contenu d’enseignement et leur évaluation (notation) de laqualité de leurs élèves. Nous avons discuté sept possibilités de l’utilisation des connaissances sur les styles de pensée pourfaciliter une amélioration de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage.

Este estudio tuvo dos propósitos. El primero fue validar la teoría del autogobierno mental de Sternberg en un contextotranscultural. El segundo fue investigar la relación entre los estilos de pensamiento y las características de los docentes. Cientonoventa y tres (65 hombres y 128 mujeres) docentes formándose en la práctica, estudiantes del programa de grado de Bachilleren Educación y del programa de Certi� cación de Postrado en Educación de la Universidad de Hong Kong fungieron comoparticipantes en la investigación. Los participantes contestaron la versión en chino del Cuestionario de Estilos de Pensamientopara Docentes (Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers, TSQT), cuyo sustento teórico es la teoría de Sternberg del

INTRODUCTION

Since the cognitive-styles movement of the late 1960s and1970s, various theories of styles have been proposed (seeGloberson & Zelniker, 1984; Kogan & Saarni, 1999;Riding & Cheema, 1991, for details). Grigorenko andSternberg (1995) classi� ed these theories of styles intothree groups: cognition-centred (e.g., Kagan, 1966;Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962),personality-centred (e.g., Gregorc, 1985; Holland, 1973),and activity-centred (e.g., Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Renzulli &Smith, 1978). These theories of styles have been used in theexamination of people’s intellectual functioning in bothacademic and nonacademic settings.

Cognitive style, as an individual difference among teach-ers, has also been studied extensively. Some of these stud-ies have focused on the relationships of teachers’ cognitivestyles to their instructional behaviours (e.g., Mahlios,1981a, 1989; Saracho, 1989), their expectations of theirstudents (Saracho, 1991), and to student achievement(Riding & Douglas, 1993; Saracho, 1991; Tymms &Gallacher, 1995). Some other studies focused on the rela-tionships of teachers’ congnitive styles to the socializationof students (e.g., Webb, 1988), and to teachers’ occupa-tional stress (Borg & Riding, 1993). Still other studiesexamined the relationships of the match and mismatchbetween teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles to stu-dents’ achievement (e.g., Allinson, Hayes, & Davis, 1994;Garlinger & Franks, 1986; Saracho, 1991), teachers’ expec-tations (e.g., Saracho & Spodek, 1994), students’ reactionsto speci� c learning activities (e.g., Conwell, Helgeson, &Wachowiak, 1987), and to patterns of classroom interac-tions between teachers and students (e.g., Mahlios, 1981b,c). Some of the early studies also had an emphasis on therelationship between the match and mismatch of theteachers’ and students’ cognitive styles and teachers’ andstudents’ attitudes toward each other (e.g., DiStefano,1970; James, 1973; Parker & Bain, 1978; Renninger &Snyder, 1983).

The majority of these studies have indicated that teach-ers’ cognitive styles as well as the match and mismatch ofteachers’ and students’ cognitive styles do make a differ-ence in teaching and learning in schools. For example, inan investigation of the effects that second- and � fth-gradeteachers’ cognitive styles have on their students’ academic

achievement, Saracho (1991) found that the students with� eld-independent teachers obtained signi� cantly higherachievement gains on the Comprehesive Tests of BasicSkills than did those students with � eld-dependent teach-ers. In the same study, Saracho discovered that � eld-independent teachers had higher expectations for studentsthan did � eld-dependent teachers. In studying the relation-ship between cognitive styles and the teaching practices ofelementary teachers, Mahlios (1981a) observed that � eld-independent teachers initiated a signi� cantly greater num-ber of academic interactions with their students as a wholeclass and that � eld-dependent teachers tended to interactwith their students individually and in small groups. Wheninvestigating the effects of cognitive style on perceived sat-isfaction and performance among students and teachers,Renninger and Snyder (1983) found that studentsexpressed signi� cantly more satisfaction and perceivedtheir teachers’ teaching as more effective if the students’cognitive styles matched those of their teachers.

Most of these studies were based on Witkin etal.’s (1962) theory of � eld-dependence/independence.Although we do not underestimate the contribution ofthese studies to an understanding of the relationship ofteachers’ and students’ cognitive styles to teaching andlearning, we also see three problems in continuing to con-duct research using traditional theories of styles such asthat of � eld-dependence/independence. First, Witkin etal.’s theory is nearly four decades old and has not faredwell in discriminant validation studies (e.g., Roach, 1985),which suggests that � eld independence is essentially identi-cal to spatial ability. Second, the theory addresses only onedimension of cognitive styles, for which scores are oftendichotomized. Third, the theory has no obvious, straight-forward application to the teaching-learning process. Whatwe need to do is to study teachers’ and students’ cognitivestyles, using a theory that is relatively general.

More recently, a few theories of cognitive/learning/thinking styles, which are more general, have been pro-posed. A � rst is Kolb’s (1976) theory of four basic types oflearning styles; converging, diverging, assimilating, andaccommodating. A second is Riding’s (1991a, b) theory ofcognitive style dimensions (verbal-imagery and wholist-analytic). A third is a theory of learning approaches/stylesproposed separately by Biggs (1987), Entwistle (1981), andMarton 1(1976). A fourth, which serves as the theoretical

4 ZHANG AND STERNBERG

autogobierno mental. También proporcionaron información demográ� ca, como edad, sexo, ingreso familiar, y duración desu experiencia docente. Asimismo, cali� caron en una escala tipo Likert de 5 puntos sus propias prácticas de enseñanza y suspercepciones del ambiente escolar. Los resultados del estudio mostraron que el TSQT es un inventario con� able y válidopara evaluar los estilos de pensamiento de los docentes de primaria y secundaria de Hong Kong formándose en la práctica.Los alpha de Cronbach variaron entre .58 y .75, con una media de .68 y una mediana de .66. Un análisis factorial de ejesprincipales, seguido de una rotación oblicua, dio como resultado dos factores que explicaron el 73.8% de la varianza.Además, los resultados de los procedimientos de regresión múltiple paso a paso indicaron correlaciones signi� cativas entreseis características de los docentes y los estilos de pensamiento especi� cados por la teoría del autogobierno mental. Estascaracterísticas de los docentes son sexo, experiencia laboral profesional fuera de los escenarios escolares, el grado en el quedisfrutaban la adopción de nuevos materiales de enseñanza, una tendencia hacia el uso de proyectos de grupo para evaluar eldesempeño de los alumnos, la autonomía percibida para determinar los contenidos de su enseñanza y su estimación de lacalidad de sus alumnos. Se discuten siete posibilidades en las que se emplea el conocimiento sobre estilos de pensamiento parafacilitar un mejoramiento de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje.

foundation of the current study, is Sternberg’s (1988, 1990,1994, 1997) theory of mental self-government.

The theory of mental self-government (Sternberg, 1988,1990, 1994, 1997) describes people’s thinking styles; that is,their preferred ways of doing things or of using the abili-ties they have. The essential notion of this theory is thatpeople need somehow to govern or manage their everydayactivities and that there are many ways of doing so. Peopletend to use styles with which they are comfortable.Furthermore, people are at least somewhat � exible in theiruse of styles and try with varying degrees of success toadapt themselves to the stylistic demands of a given situa-tion. Thus, an individual with one stylistic preference inone situation may have a different preference in anothersituation. Moreover, thinking styles are at least partiallysocialized (Sternberg, 1994, 1997), suggesting that, tosome extent, they can be modi� ed by the environment withwhich people interact. The thory of mental self-government delineates 13 thinking styles that fall along� ve dimensions of mental self-government: (a) functions,(b) forms, (c) levels, (d) scopes, and (e) leanings of govern-ment as applied to individual s.

Functions

As in government, there are three functions in individuals ’mental self-government: legislative, executive, and judicial.An individual with a legislative style often enjoys beingengaged in tasks that require self-instruction and self-direction. An individual with an executive style, on theother hand, � nds more satisfaction in the implementationof tasks with clear instructions. An individual with a judi-cial style focuses attention on evaluating the products ofactivities.

Forms

As in government, an individual’s mental self-governmenttakes four different forms: monarchic, hierarchic, oli-garchic, and anarchic. An individual with a monarchicstyle oftern enjoys being engaged in tasks that allow fullconcentration on one thing at a time. In contrast, an indi-vidual with a hierarchic style prefers to allocate attentionto several prioritized tasks within the same period of time.An individual with an oligarchic style also likes to worktoward achieving multiple goals within the same timeframe but may be reluctant to set priorities. Finally, anindividual with an anarchic style enjoys working on tasksthat would allow extreme � exibility as to what, where,when, and how the task is ful� lled. People with an anar-chic style eschew systems.

Levels

As with the ways governments deal with societies, an indi-vidual’s mental government is at two different levels:global and local. An individual with a global style tends to

direct attention to global and abstract ideas. On the con-trary, an individual with a local style tends to enjoy beingengaged in tasks that allow work with concrete details.

Scopes

There are two scopes of mental self-government: internaland external. An individual with an internal style oftenenjoys being engaged in tasks that allow him or her to workindependently. On the contrary, an individual with an exter-nal style often prefers being engaged in tasks that allow himor her to work with and cooperate with other people.

Leanings

In mental self-government, there are two leanings: liberaland conservative. An individual with a liberal style oftenenjoys engaging in tasks that involve substantial noveltyand ambiguity. In contrast, an individual with a conserva-tive style prefers to adhere to established rules and proce-dures in performing tasks.

The theory of mental self-government possesses severalcharacteristics. The styles it speci� es fall along � ve dimen-sions, rather than one. Second, styles are viewed as contin-uous rather than dichotomous. Third, styles are notviewed as “good” or “bad” in themselves. The utility of astyle for a person interacts with the task the person is per-forming and the situation in which the task is performed.Finally, the theory of mental self-government yields a pro-� le of styles for each individual , rather than merely theidenti� cation of a single style.

The theory of mental self-government has been opera-tionalized through several measures, including theThinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg & Wagner,1992), the Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers(TSQT, Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993c), the Set ofThinking Styles Tasks for Students (STSTS, Grigorenko &Sternberg, 1993a), and Students’ Thinking StylesEvaluated by Teachers (STSET, Grigorenko & Sternberg,1993b). The Thinking Styles Inventory is a self-reportmeasure that is used to assess general thinking styles (seeSternberg & Wagner, 1992, for details). The ThinkingStyles Questionnaire for Teachers is also a self-reportmeasure, but especially designed for assessing teachers’thinking styles (see Method section for details). TheSTSTS is a set of 16 different tasks and preference items.The student respondents have to solve problems and makechoices. Every response is coded via a scoring map of cor-respondence between responses and styles (see Grigorenko& Sternberg, 1993a, for details). The STSET consists of 56statements that allow teachers to evaluate their students’thinking styles (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993b).

Studies using these measures (e.g., Sternberg &Grigorenko, 1995; Zhang, 1999; Zhang & Sternberg, 1998)have indicated that the theory of mental self-governmenthas a heuristic and predictive value in educational settings.In the United States, Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995;Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997) carried out a series of

THINKING STYLES OF TEACHERS 5

studies among school teachers and students. In their � rststudy, using the Thinking Styles Questionnaires forTeachers, Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995) found thatteachers’ thinking styles differed as a function of theircharacteristics and the ideologies of the schools in whichthey worked. For example, older teachers were more exec-utive, local, and conservative than were younger teachers.Science teachers tended to be more local; humanitiesteachers tended to be more liberal. They also found thatteachers in urban public and Catholic parochial schoolswere signi� cantly more conservative in their thinking style,on average, than were teachers in an elementary privateschool in which emotional education was emphasized.

A second set of � ndings suggested signi� cant relation-ships between students’ thinking styles and such studentcharacteristics as socioeconomic status (SES) and birthorder (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995). Speci� cally, stu-dents from families of higher SES scored signi� cantlyhigher on the legislative style. Furthermore, students whowere later-borns scored signi� cantly higher on the legisla-tive style than did earlier-borns.

In their third study, Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995)investigated whether or not students bene� ted if theirthinking styles matched those of their teachers. Resultsindicated that students were more positively evaluated byand received better grades from teachers with the samethinking styles. Furthermore, teachers tended to overesti-mate the extent to which their students matched them instyles.

More recently, in a study of relationships among think-ing styles, abilities, and academic achievement,Grigorenko and Sternberg (1997) found that certain think-ing styles statistically contributed to the prediction of aca-demic performance beyond that provided by ability tests.Furthermore, results indicated that students with particu-lar thinking styles performed better on some forms ofassessment than they did on others.

In Hong Kong, we have carried out a series of threestudies using the theory of mental self-government(Zhang, 1999; Zhang & Sachs, 1997; Zhang & Sternberg,1998). All three studies employed one of the four instru-ments based on the theory of mental self-government, thatis, the Thinking Styles Inventory (Sternberg & Wagner,1992). These studies indicated that the thinking stylesdelineated in Sternberg’s theory could also be identi� edamong university students in Hong Kong. Furthermore,results from these studies indicated that students’ thinkingstyles were statistically different, depending on such vari-ables as age, sex, college class, college major, and work andtravel experience. For example, older students scored sig-ni� cantly higher on the judicial thinking style than didtheir younger counterparts. Students in the � elds of natu-ral sciences and technology scored signi� cantly higher onthe global thinking style than did students in the � elds ofsocial sciences and humanities. Students with more workand travel experience scored signi� cantly higher on the leg-islative and liberal thinking styles than did those with lesswork and travel experience. In a recent study (Zhang &Sternberg, 1998) of over 600 Hong Kong university stu-

dents, we found that after the participants’ self-rated abili-ties were controlled for, higher achievement was positivelycorrelated with the use of conservative, hierarchical, andinternal styles of thinking, and negatively correlated withthe use of legislative, liberal, and external styles of think-ing. These data seem to re� ect not differences among stu-dents in abilities, but rather differences in the matchbetween the styles of students and the styles of teachers.

Despite the important role of teachers’ thinking styles instudent learning (e.g., Mahlios, 1989; Saracho, 1989,1990), a study that is particularly designed to examineteachers’ thinking styles has not, to our knowledge, beencarried out in the Eastern part of the world, includingHong Kong. The current study was designed for this pur-pose. Speci� cally, there were two objectives to this study.First, this study was intended to validate further the theoryof mental self-government by testing the reliability andvalidity of the Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachersamong Hong Kong in-service teachers. Second, this studywas intended to identify the relationships of thinkingstyles to teachers’ characteristics, including their persono-logical characteristics (e.g., age, sex), their perceptions oftheir work environment (e.g., the degree to which theteachers think they are allowed to decide the content ofwhat they teach and the quality of their students), andtheir self-reported teaching practices (e.g., their favouritemethod of assessing students’ achievement and the degreeto which they enjoy adopting new teaching materials). Wepredicted that the TSQT could be used for identifyingHong Kong teachers’ thinking styles delineated in thetheory of mental self-government, based on our previousresearch � ndings using a different measure of the thinkingstyles de� ned by the theory, that is, the Thinking StylesInventory (Zhang, 1999; Zhang & Sachs, 1997; Zhang &Sterngberg, 1998). Based both on the contention thatthinking styles are largely socialized (e.g., Hale, 1983;Hunt, 1964; Ramirez, Castaneda, & Herold, 1974;Saracho, 1993; Shipman, 1973; Sternberg, 1997; Steward& Steward, 1974) and on previous research � ndings thatcognitive styles have a signi� cant impact on educationalpractice (e.g., Mahlios, 1981a, c, 1989), we predicted thatthinking styles would be correlated with the teachers’characteristics investigated in the current research.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 193 in-service teachers (65 male and 128female) from the University of Hong Kong. Among theparticipants, 143 were enrolled in the Bachelor ofEducation degree programme and 50 were in thePostgraduate Certi� cate in Education programme. At thetime when the survey was conducted, the participants,with an average age of 30 years, had an average teachingexperience of over 6 years, ranging from 2 to 25 years.Fifty-four were teaching in primary schools and 175 wereteaching in secondary schools (18 did not indicate). The


participants were teaching at different types of schools.For example, 23 were teaching at government or publicschools and 163 were teaching at subsidized schools.Forty-six were teaching at schools using English as themedium of instruction, whereas 147 were teaching atschools using Cantonese as the medium of instruction.One hundred and forty-nine were teaching at co-educational schools, while 34 were teaching at single-gender schools (10 did not indicate). One hundred andeight were teaching at religious schools, and 80 wereteaching at nonreligious schools (5 did not indicate).

Materials

The materials used in the current study include theThinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers (TSQT,Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1993c) and an informationalquestionnaire. The TSQT is a 49-item self-report question-naire in which participants are asked to rate themselves ona 7-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting that the statementdoes not describe them at all, and 7 denoting that the state-ment describes them extremely well. The instrument wasdesigned to assess seven thinking styles of teachers: leg-islative, executive, judicial, global, local, liberal, and con-servative. Each style is assessed by seven items thatconstitute one scale. One sample item from each scale canbe found in Table 1. Reliability statistics of the instrumentas represented by the Cronbach alpha coef� cients werereported in Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995). These alphacoef� cients, ranging from .66 (global style) to .93 (judicialstyle), were calculated on independent but comparablesamples of teachers (N5 103) not otherwise involved in thestudies reported by Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995).

As discussed earlier, the TSQT has been employed inone study conducted in the United States (Sternberg &Grigorenko, 1995). This study involved the examination ofteachers’ thinking styles across different types of schools.The questionnaire proved to be a valid instrument forassessing thinking styles de� ned in the theory of mentalself-government. The current study used a Chinese versionof the TSQT. The instrument has been translated andback-translated between English and Chinese.

The data on the participants’ characteristics wereobtained through their responses to an informationalquestionnire. Participants provided such information asage, gender, the type of school at which they were teaching,family income, and duration of their teaching experience.

Participants also responded (on a 5-point Likert scale) toquestions regarding their instructional and assessmentmethods, their attitude toward adopting new teachingmaterials, and their perception of the quality of their stu-dents and of the degree to which they believed they coulddetermine the content they taught.

Procedure

Student teachers from four convenient classes (two under-graduate classes and two post-graduate certi� cate classes)from the Faculty of Education participated in the study.The � rst author of this article explained the purpose of thecurrent study as well as the instructions for responding tothe materials to the course teachers of the four classes. Thecourse teachers were given the opportunity to clarify anyquestion that they had about the administration of thematerials. Data from all four classes were collected duringnormal class periods. The majority of participants � nishedresponding to the questionnaires in between 15 to 20 min-utes. One hundred and ninety-� ve questionnaires werereturned, of which 193 were usable for data analyses.

Data analysis

All statistical procedures were performed using SPSS(Norusis, 1994). Item-remainder correlations were calcu-lated to test the suitability of each item for inclusion in thestatistical procedures. Cronbach’s alpha was used to esti-mate the internal consistency of each of the seven scales. Aprincipal-axis factor analysis with an Oblimin rotation wasconducted for examining the validity of the instrument.Finally, a stepwise multiple-regression analysis was con-ducted to explore the relationships between the partici-pants’ thinking styles and their characteristics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Item analysis and scale reliability

Item-remainder correlations indicated that all 49 items inthe instrument were suitable for inclusion in the remainingstatistical analyses. The Cronbach alpha coef� cients forthe seven scales, shown in Table 2, ranged from .58 (theconservative style) to .75 (the legislative style), with a meanof .68 and median of .66. These alpha coef� cients were


TABLE 1Sample items from the Thinking Styles Questionnnaire for Teachers

Sample items Scale type

I like students to plan an investigation of a topic that they believe is important. LegislativeA good student always listens carefully to directions. ExecutiveTeachers should give continual feedback on students’ progress. JudicialI like to teach my students a general strategy for analyzing any design. GlobalI like to give my students tests that require exacting and highly detailed work. LocalEach year I like to select new and original materials to teach my subject. LiberalStudents should adopt the views their teachers believe to be “correct.” Conservative

similar in magnitude to those reported in Sternberg andGrigorenko’s (1995) work. Hence, the reliability of thescales in the Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers(Chinese version) was established, which allowed us toperform the remaining statiscal analyses.

Factor analysis

The results for the principal-axis factor analysis followedby an Oblimin rotation are presented in Table 3. Visualinspection of eigenvalues using the scree test (Cattell,1966) supported the extraction of two factors. In addition,there were two eigenvalues that were greater than 1. Moreimportantly, a two-factor solution was in line with thetheory of mental self-government. Therefore, two factorswere retained.

The Thinking Styles Questionnaires for Teachers isdesigned to assess three of the � ve dimensions in thetheory of mental self-government. These styles are thethree functions (legislative, executive, judicial), the two lev-els (global, local), and the two leanings (liberal, conserva-tive). Each of the seven scales fell into one of two factors.

The two factors accounted for 73.8% of the variance inthe data. The � rst factor showed high loadings for the leg-islative, judicial, liberal, and global thinking styles. Thesecond factor showed high loadings for the executive, con-servative, and local thinking styles. The two-factor modelmakes substantive sense in that the � rst factor constitutesthinking styles that are more divergent and norm-questioning and that the second factor constitutes think-ing styles that are more convergent and norm-supporting.

Given the results of this factor analysis and the substantivesense these results make, we concluded that the TSQT is avalid inventory for assessing teachers’ thinking styles asmanifested in teaching.

Relationships between thinking stylesand teachers’ characteristics

Results from a stepwise multiple-regression analysis (assummarized in Table 4) indicated that six teachers’characteristics were related to particular thinking styles.These teachers’ characteristics were two personologicalcharacteristics (gender and duration of work experienceoutside school setting), two self-reported teaching prac-tices (the degree to which teachers enjoyed adoptingnew teaching materials and the teachers’ favourite modefor assessing students’ achievement—participants rankedsix types of assessment), and two perceptions of theschool environment (the degree to which teachers deter-mine their own teaching materials and the quality oftheir students).

First, male teachers scored higher on the executivethinking style (r 5 .20, p , .05) than did their femalecounterparts. This result suggests that, compared with thefemale teachers, male teachers may be more likely to followthe guidelines set by their school authorities in their over-all educational practice. It may also mean that male teach-ers are more likely to conduct classroom instructionaccording to their own pre-set teaching plans than arefemale teachers. It may also mean that these male teachershad been in an environment where the executive thinkingstyle was more frequently rewarded. However, this is the� rst study that identi� ed such a difference in thinkingstyles between male and female teachers. Therefore, thisresult can only be viewed as tentative.

Second, teachers’ professional work experience (asmeasured by duration) outside school settings was posi-tively related to scores on the judicial (r 5 .17, p , .05)and liberal (r 5 .20, p , .01) thinking styles. These resultssuggested that teachers who had had more experiencesbeyond those in school settings tended to be more inter-ested in being engaged in the evaluations of their students’tasks. Furthermore, these teachers were more likely toenjoy working in situations in which novelty and ambigu-ity are involved. There may be a plausible explanation ofthis result. Teachers who had had more professional expe-rience beyond their experience in school settings mighthave been confronted with a greater variety of situationsthat challenged the teachers to think critically. On the con-trary, teachers who had had less professional experienceoutside school settings might have had fewer opportunitiesto deal with situations that required critical thinking.Furthermore, this result is consistent with the previousresearch � nding that rich experiences can have positiveeffects on people’s thinking (e.g., Astin, 1989; Batchelder& Root, 1994; Petersen, Leffert, & Graham, 1995;Zhang, 1999). For example, Zhang (1999) found that uni-versity students who had had more work and traveling


TABLE 2Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers scales: Means, standard

deviations, and a s (N = 193)

Scale Mean SD a

Legislative 5.05 0.76 .75Executive 4.47 0.70 .66Judicial 5.18 0.64 .66Global 4.81 0.68 .66Local 4.41 0.73 .71Liberal 5.31 0.68 .73Conservative 4.22 0.67 .58

TABLE 3Oblimin-rotated two-factor model for the Thinking Styles

Questionnaire for Teachers (N = 193)

Scale Factor 1 Factor 2

Legislative .86 2 .06Executive .01 .89Judicial .85 2 .02Conservative 2 .14 .91Liberal .88 .02Global .81 .08Local .21 .74

% of variance 48.7 25.1Cumulative % 48.7 73.8Eigenvalue 3.41 1.76

experiences scored signi� cantly higher on the judicial,liberal, and hierarchical scales.

Third, the ratings of teachers’ enjoyment of adoptingnew teaching materials was positively related to the scoreson the legislative (r 5 .24, p , .01) and liberal (r 5 .25,p , .01) styles, but negatively related to the use of the con-servative thinking style (r 5 .21, p , .01). These resultsseem to be consistent with our common-sense notion thatin adopting new teaching materials, teachers need to usecreative strategies and to be open to new ideas (i.e., morelegislative in their thinking) and to be willing to take risksin trying out new things (i.e., more liberal in their think-ing). Adopting new teaching materials also involves goingagainst old rules and established procedures (i.e., teachersbeing less conservative in their thinking).

Fourth, teachers who reported more use of group proj-ects scored signi� cantly higher (r 5 .21, p , .05) on thelegislative scale than did those who reported less use ofgroup projects. This result, again, is consistent with ourcommon-sense notion that teachers tend to assess students’achievement the way the teachers would want to beassessed if they were students themselves. Group projectsusually allow students to explore the topics of their owninterest rather than reproducing what they have beentaught by their teachers. In other words, group projectsallow for creative thinking styles. Thus, teachers who weremore legislative in their thinking preferred using groupprojects as one of their major assessment tools. Althoughthis is the � rst research that has indicated a relationshipbetween teachers’ thinking styles and teachers’ preferredassessment methods, similar research has been carried outthat suggested a similar relationship. For example, in astudy of the relationship between cognitive styles andteaching practices of elementary school teachers, Mahlios(1981a) found that � eld-dependent teachers asked signi� -cantly more factual questions whereas � eld-independentteachers asked signi� cantly more analysis-level questions.

Fifth, the degree to which teachers believed that theywere allowed by their own schools to determine the con-tent of the subjects they taught was positively correlatedwith scores on the judicial (r 5 .20, p , .01), local (r 5 .28,p , .01), and conservative (r 5 .20, p , .01) thinkingstyles. A � rst result indicated that those teachers who per-ceived their school environment as allowing for more free-

dom to determine the content of their teaching scoredhigher on the judicial style. That is, they were more likelyto be engaged in such mental activities as comparison andevaluation. There are two plausible explanations for thisresult. The � rst is that teachers who are more judicial intheir thinking tended to experience more freedom todecide the content of their teaching and they thereforetook a more active role in selecting the content of coursesthey taught. Another possibility is that teachers who hadbeen engaged in determining their own teaching contenthad become more judicial in their thinking.

However, it may be that in the process of carrying outtasks that involved comparisons and evaluations, theteachers tended to focus on the speci� c and concretedetails rather than on a broad picture. This result makessense: More often than not, teaching materials in primaryand secondary schools are standard. Therefore, whenteachers were engaged in selecting the content of theirteaching, they had to work on the speci� c details (the localthinking style) within the predetermined sets of teachingmaterials. Furthermore, it may also be that teachers whoperceived more freedom to determine their own content ofteaching also tended to be rule followers (the conservativethinking style). This may indicate that teachers who areconservative stay within the boundaries and feel like theyhave freedom of choice because they do what they are“supposed” to do.

Finally, the degree to which the teachers believed that thequality of the then-current students was better than that ofthe students they taught a few years ago was positivelyrelated to the global thinking style (r 5 .19, p , .05). This� nding suggested that the more con� dent the teachers werein the quality of their students, the more likely the teacherswere to score higher on the global thinking style in theirteaching. Although this is the � rst study that examined sucha relationship, we are not surprised by this � nding, whichlends support to the well-known notion of teacher expecta-tions. Placing con� dence in the quality of the students isone major way of communicating higher expectations tostudents. In turn, teachers’ expectations are related to theircognitive styles, as shown by previous research. Forexample, in an investigation of second- and � fth-gradeteachers, Saracho (1991) found that � eld-independentteachers had higher expectations for their students than


TABLE 4Contributions of teachers’ characteristics (TC) to thinking styles (N = 119)

Style

Legislative Executive Judicial Global Local Liberal Conservative

R2 .10 .04 .07 .04 .08 .10 .07b TC1 .23Newmaterial * 2 .20Sex

a* .21Content* .19Quality* .28Content** .25New Material** .28Content**r1 .24** 2 .20* .20** .19* .28** .25** .28**b TC2 .20Group Project* .18Outside School* .20Outside School*r2 .21* .17* .20**F 6.12** 4.67* 4.49** 4.55* 9.99** 6.54** 9.99**df (2,116) (1,117) (2,116) (1,117) (1,117) (2,116) (1,117)

a Male is coded as 1, female is coded as 2.*p < .05; **p < .01.

did the � eld-dependent teachers. Based on the nature ofglobal and local thinking styles, we believe that teacherswho have more con� dence in and higher expectations oftheir students should be more global in their thinking style.

In summary, a number of teachers’ characteristics aresigni� cantly related to thinking styles. These � ndings sup-ported the argument that styles are in part socialized (e.g.,Hale, 1983; Hunt, 1964; Ramirez et al., 1974; Saracho,1993; Shipman, 1973; Sternberg, 1997; Steward &Steward, 1974). Meanwhile, the current study also lendssupport to previous reseach � ndings that teachers’ cogni-tive/thinking styles are related to their self-reportedteaching-related activities. In particular, these results sup-ported the relationship between teachers’ thinking stylesand teachers’ characteristics identi� ed by Sternberg andGrigorenko (1995), who also employed the ThinkingStyles Questionnaires for Teachers.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The current research has made two principal contribu-tions. First, it further demonstrated that the theory ofmental self-government has heuristic value in a cross-cultural setting by showing that the Thinking StylesQuestionnaire for Teachers (Grigorenko & Sternberg,1993c) can be used to identify the thinking styles of HongKong primary and secondary school teachers. Second, thisstudy contributed to the literature concerning the relation-ship between cognitive/thinking styles and teachers’characteristics. The majority of the studies on the rela-tionship between cognitive styles and educational practicewere based on Witkin et al.’s (1962) theory of � eld-dependence/independence. The current study is based ona recent model of thinking styles, that is, the theory ofmental self-government (Sternberg, 1997).

Why do we care if teachers’ thinking styles are related totheir characteristics, including personological attributes,self-reported teaching practices, and perceptions of theirschool environment? We discuss the usefulness of thisresearch at two different levels. The � rst level involves theimplications generated directly from the results of our cur-rent research. The second level involves a general discus-sion of the signi� cance of teachers’ knowledge aboutcognitive/thinking styles.

Although there is no causal relationship found betweenthe thinking styles and teachers’ characteristics in thisstudy, our data suggest that the two variables are related toeach other. Therefore, changes in teachers’ characteristicsmay bring about changes in thinking styles, or vice versa.This research pointed to at least � ve speci� c strategies thatteachers can use to exhibit their own creative (legislative) ,non-conforming (liberal), critical (judicial), and globalstyles of thinking. First, teachers may use more projects inassessing students’ academic achievement. Second, teach-ers may adopt more new materials in their teaching. Third,teachers may take an active role in deciding what theyteach. Fourth, teachers should place more con� dence intheir students. Fifth, teachers should expand their experi-ences beyond school settings.

On a more general level, the existence of relationshipsbetween cognitive/thinking styles and teachers’ character-istics give us a good reason to include knowledge aboutcognitive/thinking styles in teacher training programmes.After reviewing studies of match or mismatch on cognitivestyles between teachers and students (e.g., Coward, Davis,& Wichern, 1978; Doebler & Eicke, 1979), Saracho (1990)concluded that prior knowledge of cognitive styles canhave a substantial impact in the education of young chil-dren. In what ways can knowledge of cognitive/thinkingstyles help teachers in their enhancement of teaching andlearning? There are many, and we list seven possibilities.

1. Change in attributions of students’ successes and fail-ures. Sometimes, teachers believe that students’ poor aca-demic performance is due to such factors as low abilities orlaziness. With some knowledge about the role of thinkingstyles in academic achievement, teachers may begin also tothink about other types of factors that affect studentlearning. For example, a teacher may realize that one ofthe reasons that some students do not do well academi-cally is that their learning styles may not match the teach-ing styles of the teachers. The result of this attitudinalchange would be multi-dimensional, most notably, inteachers’ efforts to diversify their instructional styles.

2. Change in teachers’ expectations. A change in attribu-tions regarding students’ performance might lead to achange in teachers’ expectations toward the students. Withknowledge of thinking styles, teachers may become moreaware of the fact that their thinking styles play a role intheir expectations toward students and that they may holdan unconscious bias against certain students. This aware-ness may enable teachers to reformulate and better com-municate their expectations to students.

3. Enhancement of students’ self-esteem and motivationfor learning. A change in attribution and expectation maylead to a signi� cant change in the students’ behaviours.That is, students may come to feel more con� dent andmotivated for learning. However, this change requiressome effort from the teachers. Not only should teachersconvince themselves of the importance of thinking stylesin learning, but they should also teach students aboutthinking styles. In this way, students can have a betterunderstanding of why teachers are communicating attitu-dinal changes toward them. Often students, especiallypoor performers, are overwhelmed by teachers’ attitudinalchange toward them. With the genuineness thay feel fromthe teachers, students would feel more con� dent aboutthemselves and become more motivated for learning.

4. Diversifying instructional and assessment methods.Apart from promoting attitudinal changes, an understand-ing of the role of thinking styles in student learning alsocan enable teachers to initiate pedagogical changes to cre-ate a better learning environment. For example, realizingthat both teachers and students have different thinkingstyles, teachers may start considering ways of allowing fordifferent thinking styles among students. One of theactions that a teacher can take is to use a variety ofinstructional styles so that the majority of students,


regardless of their dominant thinking styles, can bene� tfrom the teacher’s instruction. A teacher also may use avariety of assessment methods so that students can capi-talize on their strengths and compensate for their weak-nesses. For example, a student who does not do well on anin-class test may excel in conducting an individual project.

5. Enrichment of student experience. Considerableresearch has indicated that students’ extracurricular expe-riences (e.g., leadership experience and traveling and workexperiences) are related to their thinking styles, mostnotably, to creativity-promoting thinking styles.Therefore, teachers also can cultivate creative thinkingstyles by facilitating students’ experiences outside theirclassrooms.

6. Promoting student development. An understanding ofthe nature of thinking styles may also help teachers in theirmission of promoting students’ overall development. Forexample, a teacher may organize group activities in whichstudents of different dominant thinking styles would havean opportunity to interact with one another. Not onlywould students learn from one another about more effec-tive thinking styles, but they would also learn how to tol-erate differences. This interaction would lead to studentdevelopment not only in cognitive skills but also in socialskills.

7. Modeling. Teachers also can promote student learn-ing through modeling effective thinking styles. As men-tioned earlier, styles are largely socialized. Teachers areone of the major groups of people who have the mostin� uence on children. If teachers exhibit creative thinkingstyles, or broadly speaking, if teachers demonstrate � exi-bility in thinking styles regarding such matters as theirteaching and assessment methods, students will be morelikely to use the same kinds of thinking styles in theirlearning.

To conclude, teachers’ thinking styles can play animportant role in teaching and learning in schools. Webelieve that teachers’ knowledge about cognitive/thinkingstyles can bring about attitudinal and behavioural changes,which will, in turn, lead to more effective teaching andlearning.

Manuscript received July 2000Revised manuscript accepted June 2001

REFERENCES

Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J., & Davis, A. (1994). Matching thecognitive styles of managment students and teachers: Apreliminary study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79,1256–1258.

Astin, A.W. (1989). Student involvement: A developmental the-ory for higher education. In G.D. Kuh, J.B. Bean, D. Hossler,& F. K. Stage (Eds.), ASHE reader on college students (pp.226–236). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.

Batchelder, T.H., & Root, S. (1994). Effects of an undergraduateprogram to integrate academic learning and service:Cognitive, prosocial cognitive, and identity outcomes. Special

Issue: School-based community service. Journal ofAdolescence. 17, 341–355.

Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying.Hawthorn, Australia: Australian Council for EducationalResearch.

Borg, M.G., & Riding, R.J. (1993). Teacher stress and cognitivestyle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 271–286.

Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

Coward, R.T., Davis, J.K., & Wichern, R.O. (1978). Cognitivestyle and perceptions of the ideal teacher. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 3, 232–238.

Doebler, L.K., & Eicke, F.J. (1979). Effects of teacher awarenessof the educational implications of � eld-dependent/independ-ent cognitive style on selected classroom variables. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 71, 226–232.

DiStefano, J.J. (1970). Interpersonal perceptions of � eld-independent and � eld-dependent teachers and students.Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 463A–464A.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through theirindividual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.

Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Styles of teaching and learning: An inte-grated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers,and lecturers. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Garlinger, D.K., & Frank, B.M. (1986). Teacher-student cogni-tive styles and academic achievement: A review and a mini-meta-analysis. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 21, 2–8.

Globerson, T. & Zelniker, T. (Eds.). (1984). Cognitive style andcognitive development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Gregorc, A.F. (1985) Inside styles: Beyond the basics. Maynard,MA: Gabriel Systems.

Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1993a). Set of ThinkingStyles Tasks for Students. Unpublished test, Yale University.

Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1993b). Students’ ThinkingStyles Evaluated by Teachers. Unpublished test, YaleUniversity.

Grigorenko, E.L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1993c). Thinking StylesQuestionnaire for Teachers. Unpublished test, Yale University.

Grigorenko. E.L., & Sternberg, R.L. (1995). Thinking styles. InD.H. Sakloske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbookof personality and intelligence (pp. 205–229). New York:Plenum Press.

Grigorenko, E., & Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abil-ities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63,295–312.

Hale, J. (1983). Black children: Their roots, culture and learningstyles. In O.N. Saracho & B Spodek (Eds.), Understanding themulticultural experience in early childhood education (pp.17–34). Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children.

Holland, J.L. (1973) Making vocational choices: A theory ofcareers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hunt, J.McV. (1964) How children develop intellectually.Children, 11, 83–91.

James, C.D.R. (1973). A cognitive style approach to teacher-pupilinteraction and the academic performance of black children.Unpublished master’s thesis, Rutgers University.

Kagan, J. (1966). Re� ection-impulsivity: The generality anddynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 71, 17–24.

Kogan, N., & Saarni, C. (1990). Cognitive style in children: Someevolving trends. In O.N. Saracho (Ed.), Cognitive style andearly education (pp. 3–31). New York: Gordon & Breach.

Kolb, D.A. (1976). The learning style inventory: Technical manual.Boston, MA: McBer.

Mahlios, M. (1981a). Instructional design and cognitive styles ofteachers in elementary schools. Perceptual and Motor Skills,52, 335–338.

Mahlios, M. (1981b). Relationships of cognitive style to teacher-student interaction and student learning. Journal ofClassroom Interaction, 17, 26–30.


Mahlios, M. (1981c). Effects of cognitive style on patterns ofdyadic classroom interaction. Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 49, 147–157.

Mahlios, M. (1989). The in� uence of cognitive style on the teach-ing practices of elementary teachers. Early Child Developmentand Care, 51, 89–107.

Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implicationson an alternative view of learning. In J.J. Entwistle (Ed.),Strategies for research and development in higher education (pp.200–222). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Norusis, M.J. (1994). SPSS: Guide to data analysis. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Packer, J., & Bain, J.D. (1978). Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,864–871.

Petersen, A.C., Leffert, N., & Graham, B.L. (1995). Adolescentdevelopment and the emergence of sexuality. Suicide and LifeThreatening Behavior, 25, 4–17.

Ramirez, M., Castaneda, A., & Herold, P.L. (1974). Introduction tocognitive styles, new approaches to bilingual-bicultural develop-ment. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed.1089–1497.

Renninger, K.A., & Snyder, S..S. (1983). Effects of cognitive styleon perceived satisfaction of performance among students andteachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 668–676.

Renzulli, J.S., & Smith, L.H. (1978). Learning styles inventory.Mans� eld Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Riding, R. (1991a). Cognitive style analysis. Birmingham, UK:Learning and Training Technology.

Riding, R. (1991b). Cognitive style analysis user manual.Birmingham, UK: Learning and Training Technology.

Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overviewand integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193–215.

Riding, R.J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive styleand mode of presentation on learning performance, BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307.

Roach, D.A. (1985). Effects of cognitive style, intelligence, andsex on reading achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,1139–1142.

Saracho, O.N. (1989). The early childhood teachers’ cognitivestyles and their instructional behaviors. Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 49, 99–109.

Saracho, O.N. (1990). The match and mismatch of teachers andstudents’ cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care,54, 99–109.

Saracho, O.N. (1991). Teacher expectations and cognitive style:Implications for students’ academic achievement. Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 77, 97–108.

Saracho, O.N. (1993). Sociocultural perspectives in the cognitivestyles of young students and teachers. Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 84, 1–17.

Saracho, O.N., & Spodek, B. (1994). Matching preschool chil-dren’s and teachers’ cognitive styles. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 78, 683–689.

Shipman, V.C. (1973). Disadvantaged children and their � rst schoolexperiences: Interim report. Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Services.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intel-lectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31,197–224.

Sternberg, R.J. (1990). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of thenature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sternberg, R.J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment atthe interface between intelligence and personality. In R.J.Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (1995). Styles of thinking inthe school. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 201–219.

Sternberg, R.J., & Wagner, R.K. (1992). Thinking StylesInventory. Unpublished test, Yale University.

Steward, M.S., & Steward, D.S. (1974). Effect of social dis-tance on teaching strategies of Anglo-American andMexican-American mothers. Developmental Psychology, 10,797–807.

Tymms, P., & Gallacher, S. (1995). Primary science: An explo-ration of differential classroom success. Research in Scienceand Technological Education, 13, 155–162.

Webb, N.B. (1988). The role of the � eld instructor in the social-ization of students. Social Casework, 69, 35–40.

Witkin, H.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies ofdevelopment. New York: John Wiley.

Witkin, H.A., Dyd, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., &Karp, S.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York:John Wiley.

Zhang, L.F. (1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the the-ory of mental self-government. The Journal of Psychology.133, 165–181.

Zhang, L.F., & Sachs, J. (1997). Assessing thinking styles in thetheory of mental self-government: A Hong Kong validitystudy. Psychological Reports, 81, 915–928.

Zhang, L.F., & Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Thinking styles, abilities,and academic achievement among Hong Kong university stu-dents. Educational Research Journal, 13, 41–62.


thinking styles and teachers' characteristics

Documents