File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

postgraduate thesis: Intellectual styles : their malleability, their associations, and their relationships to ability and personality traits

TitleIntellectual styles : their malleability, their associations, and their relationships to ability and personality traits
Authors
Advisors
Advisor(s):Zhang, LF
Issue Date2013
PublisherThe University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)
Citation
Xie, Q. [謝秋芝]. (2013). Intellectual styles : their malleability, their associations, and their relationships to ability and personality traits. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b5153717
Abstract“Intellectual style”, a term that encompasses all the existing style concepts, refers to one’s preferred ways of processing information and approaching tasks. The present research has three purposes. First, it investigates the associations among styles in the three traditions: cognition-centered, personality-centered, and activity-centered traditions. Second, it looks into the relationships between intellectual styles and ability as well as between intellectual styles and personality traits. Third, it explores the changeability of intellectual styles. Field-dependence/independence (FDI), psychological types, and learning approaches were respectively selected as the representatives of cognition-centered, personality-centered, and activity-centered styles. This research includes three studies. The first one is a pilot study that investigates the reliability and validity of the instruments used in this research. It also preliminarily investigates the relationships among intellectual styles, abilities, and personality traits. Two hundred and ninety-eight students in a Chinese university participated in this study. Five instruments were used. The modified Chinese version of Group Embedded Test examined FDI. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measured psychological types. The revised Two Factor Version of Study Process Questionnaire tested learning approaches. The Sternberg Triarchic Ability Test examined abilities. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 measured personality traits. Study Two is a longitudinal investigation. It explores (1) the associations among FDI, psychological types, and learning approaches; (2) the relationships between the three style constructs, ability, and personality traits; (3) the changeability of intellectual styles; and (4) the effects of students’ background factors on intellectual styles, ability, personality, and the changes on styles. Five hundred and ten students in a Chinese university (the same as the one involved in the pilot study) participated in the pre-test, and 430 of these students participated in the post-test. The interval time was one academic year. Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices replaced Sternberg’s Triarchic Ability Test that showed poor internal consistency reliability in the pilot study. The other instruments were the same as those used in the pilot study. Study Three explores why students sustain or change their intellectual styles. Twenty-six students who participated in Study Two were selected for this study. The researcher conducted focus group discussions. The findings show that FDI, psychological types, and learning approaches did not share statistically significant common variance, indicating that styles in the three approaches represent different style constructs. FDI was most closely associated with ability, whereas psychological types and learning approaches were strongly associated with personality traits. This suggests that styles in the three traditions are related to ability and personality traits to different extents: cognition-centered styles are most closely related to ability, whereas personality-centered styles are highly related to personality traits. Activity-centered styles are more strongly related to personality traits than to ability. Learning approaches and FDI are comparatively changeable, whereas psychological types are comparatively stable. The qualitative findings indicate that students tend to maintain their styles out of habit or to show their consistent selfidentity/principle. However, styles can be changed because of dynamic environments and situational demands. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
DegreeDoctor of Philosophy
SubjectLearning, Psychology of
Cognitive styles
Dept/ProgramEducation
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/196018

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorZhang, LF-
dc.contributor.authorXie, Qiuzhi-
dc.contributor.author謝秋芝-
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-21T03:50:05Z-
dc.date.available2014-03-21T03:50:05Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationXie, Q. [謝秋芝]. (2013). Intellectual styles : their malleability, their associations, and their relationships to ability and personality traits. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b5153717-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/196018-
dc.description.abstract“Intellectual style”, a term that encompasses all the existing style concepts, refers to one’s preferred ways of processing information and approaching tasks. The present research has three purposes. First, it investigates the associations among styles in the three traditions: cognition-centered, personality-centered, and activity-centered traditions. Second, it looks into the relationships between intellectual styles and ability as well as between intellectual styles and personality traits. Third, it explores the changeability of intellectual styles. Field-dependence/independence (FDI), psychological types, and learning approaches were respectively selected as the representatives of cognition-centered, personality-centered, and activity-centered styles. This research includes three studies. The first one is a pilot study that investigates the reliability and validity of the instruments used in this research. It also preliminarily investigates the relationships among intellectual styles, abilities, and personality traits. Two hundred and ninety-eight students in a Chinese university participated in this study. Five instruments were used. The modified Chinese version of Group Embedded Test examined FDI. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measured psychological types. The revised Two Factor Version of Study Process Questionnaire tested learning approaches. The Sternberg Triarchic Ability Test examined abilities. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 measured personality traits. Study Two is a longitudinal investigation. It explores (1) the associations among FDI, psychological types, and learning approaches; (2) the relationships between the three style constructs, ability, and personality traits; (3) the changeability of intellectual styles; and (4) the effects of students’ background factors on intellectual styles, ability, personality, and the changes on styles. Five hundred and ten students in a Chinese university (the same as the one involved in the pilot study) participated in the pre-test, and 430 of these students participated in the post-test. The interval time was one academic year. Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices replaced Sternberg’s Triarchic Ability Test that showed poor internal consistency reliability in the pilot study. The other instruments were the same as those used in the pilot study. Study Three explores why students sustain or change their intellectual styles. Twenty-six students who participated in Study Two were selected for this study. The researcher conducted focus group discussions. The findings show that FDI, psychological types, and learning approaches did not share statistically significant common variance, indicating that styles in the three approaches represent different style constructs. FDI was most closely associated with ability, whereas psychological types and learning approaches were strongly associated with personality traits. This suggests that styles in the three traditions are related to ability and personality traits to different extents: cognition-centered styles are most closely related to ability, whereas personality-centered styles are highly related to personality traits. Activity-centered styles are more strongly related to personality traits than to ability. Learning approaches and FDI are comparatively changeable, whereas psychological types are comparatively stable. The qualitative findings indicate that students tend to maintain their styles out of habit or to show their consistent selfidentity/principle. However, styles can be changed because of dynamic environments and situational demands. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherThe University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong)-
dc.relation.ispartofHKU Theses Online (HKUTO)-
dc.rightsThe author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) and the right to use in future works.-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subject.lcshLearning, Psychology of-
dc.subject.lcshCognitive styles-
dc.titleIntellectual styles : their malleability, their associations, and their relationships to ability and personality traits-
dc.typePG_Thesis-
dc.identifier.hkulb5153717-
dc.description.thesisnameDoctor of Philosophy-
dc.description.thesislevelDoctoral-
dc.description.thesisdisciplineEducation-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.5353/th_b5153717-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats