• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • English 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Educational collections
  • Ethics in Higher Education
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Educational collections
  • Ethics in Higher Education
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of the LibraryCommunitiesPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsThis CollectionPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsProfilesView

My Account

LoginRegister

The Library

AboutNew SubmissionSubmission GuideSearch GuideRepository PolicyContact

Are learning approaches and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations.

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Author(s)
Zhang, LF
Sternberg, RJ
Keywords
Adult
China
Cognition - Physiology
Culture
Female
Humans
Learning - Physiology
Male
Middle Aged
Psychological Theory
Questionnaires
Reproducibility Of Results
Thinking - Physiology
Show allShow less

Full record
Show full item record
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/447057
Online Access
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/175361
Abstract
This article presents the results of an investigation of the construct validity of J. B. Biggs's (1987) theory of learning approaches and of R. J. Sternberg's (1988) theory of thinking styles in two Chinese populations. The study is also an examination of the nature of the relations between the two theories. University students from Hong Kong (n = 854) and from Nanjing, mainland China (n = 215), completed the Study Process Questionnaire (J. B. Biggs, 1992) and the Thinking Styles Inventory (R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner, 1992). Results indicated that both inventories were reliable and valid for assessing the constructs underlying their respective theories among both Hong Kong and Nanjing university students. Results also showed that the learning approaches and thinking styles are related in the hypothesized ways: The surface approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with less complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the legislative, judicial, liberal, and hierarchical styles. The deep approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with more complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the executive, conservative, local, and monarchic styles. Implications of these relations are discussed.
published_or_final_version
Date
2012-11-26
Type
Article
Identifier
oai:hub.hku.hk:10722/175361
The Journal Of Psychology, 2000, v. 134 n. 5, p. 469-489
10.1080/00223980009598230
489
59199
WOS:000089704800001
0022-3980
5
11034129
eid_2-s2.0-0039923156
469
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/175361
134
Show allShow less
Copyright/License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Collections
Ethics in Higher Education

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.