learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
LSRC reference Section 7<br />
page 114/115<br />
Sternberg’s theory and the TSI were part of the battery<br />
of tests used by Demetriou and Kazi (2001) in their<br />
attempt to build and test a theory of the mind and its<br />
development from childhood to adolescence. The scale<br />
of the project is impressive, with a sample of 840<br />
participants from 10 to 15 years of age in Thessaloniki,<br />
Greece and a follow-up study of 322 students from<br />
the University of Cyprus. It is, however, important<br />
to realise that only the first two of the five dimensions<br />
of Sternberg’s theory were tested (ie function and<br />
form were tested, but not level, scope and <strong>learning</strong>).<br />
Moreover, the test of thinking <strong>styles</strong> constituted only<br />
a very small part of the data collection which involved<br />
three testing periods of 2 hours; the battery consisted<br />
of six tests of cognitive ability (quantitative, causal,<br />
spatial, social understanding, drawing and creativity)<br />
and self-evaluation questionnaires on cognitive ability,<br />
personality, cognitive and problem-solving strategies<br />
and occupational preferences, as well as thinking<br />
<strong>styles</strong>. It is, nevertheless, important to note that the<br />
alphas for the three <strong>styles</strong>: executive (0.56), legislative<br />
(0.51), and evaluative (0.59) were considerably lower<br />
than those which Sternberg claimed for them.<br />
Demetriou and Kazi (2001, 196) conclude that<br />
Sternberg’s thinking <strong>styles</strong><br />
are derivatives of the more fundamental dimensions<br />
involved in the realms of personality and cognition.<br />
In a sense, this finding is in line with Sternberg’s<br />
conception of thinking <strong>styles</strong> as the interface between<br />
personality, intelligence and actual performance.<br />
One can live without them<br />
No conclusions were drawn by these authors in relation<br />
to thinking <strong>styles</strong> and pedagogy.<br />
General<br />
Each of the 13 <strong>styles</strong> is based on a short<br />
self-assessment inventory of no more than eight<br />
questions, some of which may strike some respondents<br />
as unanswerable; for example, Question 1 in the<br />
External Style Inventory reads: ‘When starting a task,<br />
I like to brainstorm ideas with friends or peers’.<br />
This statement is likely to raise the following questions<br />
in the minds of respondents: does this refer to every<br />
task? Is brainstorming appropriate for all tasks?<br />
Without a detailed description of the kind of task the<br />
psychologist has in mind, some respondents may<br />
find themselves unable and unwilling to answer this<br />
question. It does not matter how sophisticated the<br />
statistical analysis of responses to such questions is,<br />
if the responses do not accurately reflect the behaviour<br />
of the respondents. Each of the 13 inventories has<br />
a similar vague statement; for example, the Monarchic<br />
Style Inventory contains the following statement:<br />
‘When trying to finish a task, I tend to ignore problems<br />
that come up.’ We argue that it depends on the task<br />
and on the type of problem that comes up.<br />
The statements in the 13 inventories are rather<br />
obvious, so it is relatively easy to guess the intentions<br />
of the psychologist who wrote the item. It would<br />
therefore be simple to fake a response, for instance,<br />
to a Conservative Style statement such as ‘When faced<br />
with a problem, I like to solve it in a traditional way’.<br />
Respondents could decide whether they wish to appear<br />
as left- or right-wing or somewhere in between.<br />
Implications for pedagogy<br />
The significance for pedagogy of Sternberg’s research<br />
on thinking <strong>styles</strong> can be summarised in five brief<br />
propositions which are of a very general nature.<br />
Teachers should use a variety of teaching methods<br />
(eg lectures, group discussions).<br />
Teachers should use a variety of assessment methods<br />
(eg multiple-choice questions, essays, projects).<br />
Teachers should provide students with an<br />
understanding of different thinking <strong>styles</strong> and should<br />
themselves be aware of the <strong>styles</strong> they either<br />
encourage or punish.<br />
Teachers should know about gender and cross-cultural<br />
differences in thinking <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
Teachers should use extracurricular activities<br />
to enhance the quality of teaching and <strong>learning</strong><br />
(see Zhang and Sternberg 2001).<br />
The fifth recommendation does not appear to stem from<br />
Sternberg’s own research, but from the work of others<br />
on creative thinking.<br />
Sternberg is convinced that his theory is important<br />
for pedagogy and has carried out a series of studies<br />
of thinking/<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> in both secondary and<br />
higher education, and cross-cultural studies in China,<br />
Hong Kong and the US. In his own words (1999, 115):<br />
‘The key principle [of the theory] is that in order<br />
for students to benefit maximally from instruction<br />
and assessment, at least some of each should match<br />
their <strong>styles</strong> of thinking’. He is convinced that different<br />
methods of instruction work best for different <strong>styles</strong><br />
of thought and produces a table (reproduced here<br />
as Table 40) to show the various types of compatibility.<br />
His argument is that teachers need the flexibility to<br />
vary their teaching style to suit students’ different <strong>styles</strong><br />
of thought and that few methods of instruction are<br />
likely to be optimal for everyone.<br />
Again, Sternberg argues, without any supporting<br />
evidence, that different methods of assessment tend<br />
to benefit different thinking <strong>styles</strong> and produces<br />
a table to exemplify the connections (see Table 41).