Advertisement

Conceptions of Learning and Thinking Styles Among Deaf, Hard-of-Hearing, and Hearing Students

  • Sanyin ChengEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Thinking styles Conceptions of learning Deaf or hard-of-hearing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

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.

Inform Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The researcher has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulton-Lewis, G., Marton, F., Lewis, D. C., & Wilss, L. A. (2000). Learning in formal and informal contexts: conceptions and strategies of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university students. Learning and Instruction, 10, 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutin, D. L. (2008). Persistence in postsecondary environments of students with hearing impairments. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74, 25.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, D. O., & Thompson, T. (2000). The handbook of communication and physical disability. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Brauer, B. A. (1993). Adequacy of a translation of the MMPI into American sign language for use with deaf individuals: linguistic equivalency issues. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Buckley, C. A., Pitt, E., Norton, B., & Owens, T. (2010). Students’ approaches to study, conceptions of learning and judgements about the value of networked technologies. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. M. (1989). A primer of LISREL. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, S. Y., & Zhang, L. F. (2014). Validating the thinking styles inventory—Revised II among Chinese university students with hearing impairment through test accommodations. American Annals of the Deaf, 159, 22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng, S., Zhang, L.-f., & Hu, X. (2016). Thinking styles and university self-efficacy among deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(1), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chute, P. M. (2012). College experience for young adults with hearing loss. Deafness and Education International, 14, 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cliff, A. F. (2000). Dissonance in first-year students’ reflections on their learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Edmunds, R., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2009). Conceptions of learning approaches to studying and personal development in UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Entwistle, N. J., & Peterson, E. R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher education: relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  19. Entwistle, N. J., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approach to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fan, J. Q. (2013). Thinking styles’ socialization and their roles in student development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Hong Kong).Google Scholar
  21. Fan, W. Q., & Zhang, L.-F. (2009). Are achievement motivation and thinking styles related? A visit among Chinese university students. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fiebert, M. (1967). Cognitive styles in the deaf. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24(1), 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gore, J. R., A, P., Leuwerke, W. C., & Turley, S. E. (2005). A psychometric study of the college self-efficacy inventory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 7, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 205–230). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Holcomb, T. (2010). Deaf epistemology: the deaf way of knowing. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kane, R. (1997). Outcomes measures. In R. Kane (Ed.), Understanding Health Care Outcomes Research. Gaithersburg: Aspen.Google Scholar
  30. Lonka, K., Joram, E., & Bryson, M. (1996). Conceptions of learning and knowledge: does training make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loyens, S. M., Rikers, R. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Students' conceptions of constructivist learning in different programme years and different learning environments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Makoe, M., Richardson, J., & Price, L. (2007). Conceptions of learning in adult students embarking on distance education. Higher Education, 55, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II – Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parasnis, I., & Long, G. L. (1979). Relationships among spatial skills, communication skills, and field independence in deaf students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49, 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul, P., & Moores, D. (2010). Introduction: toward an understanding of epistemology and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  38. Peterson, E. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Irving, S. E. (2010). Secondary school students' conceptions of learning and their relationship to achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prosser, M., Hazel, E., & Waterhouse, F. (2000). Students’ experiences of studying physics concepts: the effects of disintegrated perceptions and approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Purdie, N., & Hattie, J. (2002). Assessing students' conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, 2, 17–32.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Richardson, J. T. E., & Woodley, A. (2001). Perceptions of academic quality among students with a hearing loss in distance education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richardson, J. T. E., MacLeod-Gallinger, J., McKee, B. G., & Long, G. L. (2000). Approaches to studying in deaf and hearing students in higher education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 156–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Richardson, J. T. E., Barnes, L., & Fleming, J. (2004). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in deaf and hearing students in higher education. Deafness and Education International, 6, 100–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2003). Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised I. Unpublished test. Yale University.Google Scholar
  50. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II. Unpublished test. Tufts University.Google Scholar
  51. Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: a phenomenograhic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1733–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (2000). Dissonance in students’ regulation of learning processes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles and cognitive development. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, L. F. (2007). Intellectual styles and academic achievement among senior secondary school students in rural China. Educational Psychology, 27, 675–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang, L. F. (2008). Thinking styles and emotions. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang, L. F. (2009). Anxiety and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008a). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, learning conceptions, and approaches to study: a cross-cultural structural model? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(4), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008b). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Education FacultyCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations