Wed, Apr 24, 2024
| فارسی
Volume 8, Issue 2 (Summer 2006)
Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 8(2): 44-52 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shokri O, Kadivar P, Farzad V E, Daneshvarpour Z. Thinking Styles and Learning Approaches in Relation to Students’ Academic Achievement. Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2006; 8 (2) :44-52
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-232-en.html
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-232-en.html
1- Tarbiat Moalem University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (3302 Views)
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine thinking styles and learning approaches in relation to academic achievement of university students.
Method: On a sample of 398 subjects (203 males and 195 females), the Thinking Styles Inventory and Study Process Questionnaire were applied. Students’ average scores were obtained from the university administrations, and was used as a measure of academic achievement. For testing the relations between thinking styles and learning approaches in genders, and for associations among study variables, we used independent group t-test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and regression analysis.
Results: The results showed a significant difference between males and females in legislative, judicial, hierarchical, internal, and external thinking styles and the surface learning approach. A significant positive correlation was noticed between the legislative, judicial, liberal, hierarchical, and external thinking styles and the deep learning approach with academic achievement. Academic achievement had a significant negative correlation between executive, local, and conservative thinking styles and the surface learning approach. Also, the association between the legislative, judicial, liberal, hierarchical, and external thinking styles with the deep learning approach was positive and significant. The executive, local, conservative, and oligarchic thinking styles were strongly associated with the surface learning approach. Five dimensions of thinking styles and two levels of learning approaches contributed to the prediction of students’ academic achievement.
Conclusion: The role of thinking styles and learning approaches should be considered in studies on academic achievement of university students.
Method: On a sample of 398 subjects (203 males and 195 females), the Thinking Styles Inventory and Study Process Questionnaire were applied. Students’ average scores were obtained from the university administrations, and was used as a measure of academic achievement. For testing the relations between thinking styles and learning approaches in genders, and for associations among study variables, we used independent group t-test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient and regression analysis.
Results: The results showed a significant difference between males and females in legislative, judicial, hierarchical, internal, and external thinking styles and the surface learning approach. A significant positive correlation was noticed between the legislative, judicial, liberal, hierarchical, and external thinking styles and the deep learning approach with academic achievement. Academic achievement had a significant negative correlation between executive, local, and conservative thinking styles and the surface learning approach. Also, the association between the legislative, judicial, liberal, hierarchical, and external thinking styles with the deep learning approach was positive and significant. The executive, local, conservative, and oligarchic thinking styles were strongly associated with the surface learning approach. Five dimensions of thinking styles and two levels of learning approaches contributed to the prediction of students’ academic achievement.
Conclusion: The role of thinking styles and learning approaches should be considered in studies on academic achievement of university students.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2006/03/16 | Accepted: 2006/04/21 | Published: 2006/06/22
Received: 2006/03/16 | Accepted: 2006/04/21 | Published: 2006/06/22
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
