How do students' and teachers' thinking styles predict academic achievement among Hong Kong secondary school students?

Abstract

Thinking styles refer to one’s preferred ways of using one’s abilities. This study investigates whether or not students’ thinking styles, teachers' thinking styles in teaching, and student-teacher style match can predict students’ academic achievement in a range of academic subjects. The study also aims to compare its findings with those of studies involving different curricula and age groups to explore thinking styles’ domain specificity. Two cohorts of final year International Baccalaureate Diploma students (N= 111) and teachers (N= 15) participated in this study. Students’ thinking styles were assessed by the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II and teachers’ thinking styles in teaching were measured by the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory. Students’ thinking styles, teachers’ thinking styles in teaching, and their absolute difference in thinking style scores were used to predict students’ academic achievement after controlling for demographic information and students’ abilities according to their performance on the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test-level H.

Results indicated that students’ internal and hierarchical styles significantly predicted better achievement in overall scores. The internal style also significantly predicted better achievement in English, Chinese, and theory of knowledge. Consistent with previous studies, the hierarchical style and other Type I intellectual styles based on other style models are often found positively related to academic achievement. However, the present findings are different from two studies that examined two different secondary school curricula in Hong Kong, in which Type II thinking styles predicted academic achievement. Findings suggested that the contribution of students’ thinking styles on academic achievement was domain specific and varied depending on the curriculum. Moreover, contradicting to the field dependence/independence studies of teachers’ styles, teachers’ thinking styles in teaching did not predict academic achievement significantly in any subject in this study.

Furthermore, student-teacher style match in the executive style predicted better academic achievement in biology, whereas a style mismatch in the local style predicted better achievement in mathematics. No significance difference in academic achievement was found when there was a style match or mismatch in English, Chinese, and physics. The contribution of style match to academic achievement varied across the five subjects, suggesting the contribution was domain specific and explained why the literature on style match research has inconclusive findings. Moreover, style match’s contribution to academic achievement in mathematics was inconsistent with those in studies involving both younger and older age groups.

The implications of this study are that style researchers must take into account of the curriculum, subject areas, age groups, and abilities of research participants when examining styles’ contributions to academic achievement. Moreover, rather than aiming to match students’ thinking styles, educators should teach utilizing diverse thinking styles to provide learning environments that alternate between style match and mismatch so students can learn to adapt.