Sitengboge Questioning Of The Thinking Style Theory And Scale Of The Revision

Sternberg considered thinking style as a preferred way one use his/her abilities, and to be an important aspect of individual differences in intelligence. Sternberg proposed Mental Self-Government Theory to study the differences in individual’s thinking style, and to explore related educational issues. On the basis of the theory, a measurement was developed, which was well known as the Thinking Style Inventory. Since then, Sternberg himself and other researchers carried out a series of studies about the structure of the theory and the psychometric properties of the TSI. Further studies showed that:the reliability of some subscales of the TSI did not meet the psychometric requirements. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the factor structure was inconsistent with five-factor structure proposed by Sternberg. Moreover, Sternberg used many terms from Management or Administration in his theory and measurement. This study attempted to revise the Thinking Styles Inventory, and use more suitable terms to elaborate thinking style. We chosen the undergraduate from Changsha to complete the revised version of the TSI, and analyzed its psychometric properties. Furthermore, we studied the differences of thinking style in variables such as gender, grade etc. The results showed that:(1) Five factors were found by exploratory factor analysis, and named as follows: Innovative-Custumal, Global-Local, Active-Passive, Verbal-Imagery and Logical-Intuitive. The revised version of the TSI had good reliability and validity.(2)The thinking style of the graduate had no significant differences among grades and school types.(3) Innovative-Custumal, Verbal-Imagery and Logical-Intuitive thinking styles of the graduate had significant differences between subjects(t=-2.522, p<.05; t=-2.122, p<.05;t=-2.489,p<.05), the students of humanities had higher scores than the students of science, while Global-Local, Active-Passive thinking styles of the graduate had no significant differences between subjects.(4)Innovative-Custumal, Active-Passive, Verbal-Imagery and Logical-Intuitive thinking styles of the graduate had significant differences between gender (t=2.684, p<.01; t=2.415, p<.05; t=2.138, p<.05; t=4.505,p<.001), male’s score higher than female’s, while Global-Local thinking style of the graduate had no significant differences between gender.Conclusions:(1)The revised version was a valid tool to assess thinking Style of the undergraduate;(2)The thinking style of the undergraduate had been developed and remained stable;(3)China’s education and assessment lead to the homogenization of students’thinking styles;(4)Thinking style was relevant to subject training.(5)Gender affected students’thinking style.