Conceptions of Learning and Thinking Styles Among Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing, and Hearing Students
- 11 Downloads
This study explores how students’ conceptions of learning relate to their thinking styles by administering the Conceptions of Learning Inventory III and the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II to 350 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) and 463 hearing university students in mainland China. The reliabilities for the two inventories were first estimated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the validity of the COL-III. Finally, to predict thinking styles from conceptions of learning, hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted. Results showed that, among both DHH and hearing students, qualitative conceptions of learning (understanding, personal change, continuous, social competence, and duty) were significantly positively associated with a wide range of thinking styles. For DHH students, the contributions of conceptions of learning ranged from 11% to 32%, with a median of 25%. The predominant predictor was personal change. For hearing students, the contributions of conceptions of learning to thinking styles ranged from 9% to 22% (with a median of 15%), with the predominant predictor being duty. Thus, conceptions of learning significantly predicted thinking styles among both DHH and hearing students. The contributions, limitations, and implications of this research are discussed.
KeywordsThinking styles Conceptions of learning Deaf or hard-of-hearing
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The researcher has no conflict of interest.
- Berry, J. W. (1991). Cultural variations in field dependence-independence. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 289–308). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Boutin, D. L. (2008). Persistence in postsecondary environments of students with hearing impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 25.Google Scholar
- Braithwaite, D. O., & Thompson, T. (2000). The handbook of communication and physical disability. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Davey, B., & LaSasso, C. (1985). Relations of cognitive style to assessment components of reading comprehension for hearing-impaired adolescents. The Volta Review, 87, 17–27.Google Scholar
- Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
- Fan, J. Q. (2013). Thinking styles’ socialization and their roles in student development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Hong Kong).Google Scholar
- Harris, R. I. (1978). The relationship of impulse control to parent hearing status, manual communication, and academic achievement in deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 52–67.Google Scholar
- Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
- Kane, R. (1997). Outcomes measures. In R. Kane (Ed.), Understanding Health Care Outcomes Research. Gaithersburg: Aspen.Google Scholar
- Lucas, U. & Meyer, J. H. F. (2003) Understanding students’ conceptions of learning and subject in ‘introductory’ courses: the case of introductory accounting, paper presented at ‘Metalearning in higher education: taking account of the student perspective’, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, 10thBiennial Conference, Padova.Google Scholar
- Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students' conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2, 17–32.Google Scholar
- Purdie, N., Hattie, J. A., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87–100.Google Scholar
- Ren, Y. Y. (2011). Longren xuesheng hanyu shumianyu yufa yanjiu zongshu [A review of researches into the grammar of hearing-impaired students. Written in Chinese]. Zhong Guo Teshu Jiao Yu [Chinese Journal of Special Education], 129, 16–19.Google Scholar
- Richardson, J. T. E., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in people with hearing loss. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 533–546.Google Scholar
- Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions. Reports from the Department of Education, University of Göteborg, No. 76.Google Scholar
- Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2003). Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised I. Unpublished test. Yale University.Google Scholar
- Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II. Unpublished test. Tufts University.Google Scholar
- Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Zhang, D., Ward, K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., Balcazar, F., Ball, A., Bacon, A., Calkins, C., Heller, T., Goode, T., Dias, R., Jesien, G. S., McVeigh, T., Nygren, M. A., Palmer, S. B., & Walker, H. M. (2011). Personal self-determination and moderating variables that impact efforts to promote self-determination. Exceptionality, 19, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar