-

University of Nigeria Virtual Library

Serial No

Author 1 OBIDOA, Mabel A. PH.D

Author 2 Professor Elizabeth Eke

Author 3

Title The Influence of Thinking Style

Preference on Question Choice of Undergraduate Students

Keywords

Description Journal Vol.3 No. 1

Category Educational Foundation

Publisher University of Nigeria Press Ltd

Publication Date November 2007

Signature

I QUESTION CHOICE OF UNDEKGI<AUUATE.SllUDENTS r

I3 Y

MABEL A. OBIDOA, 1'fI.D

IN'l'1tOl~UC'I1ION k I i In evaluating learning outconies like in every human end avor,

i l is important to have valid indicators. These indicators are those jhings L1,11 show or demonstrate that knowleclge has bcen acquired in a 'given ~ui)~cc~kontcnt arcs, Indici~to~s of l ~ i ~ l ~ l i ~ ~ g O L I I C O I I ~ I I C C ~ to vhlidiy, I

~~lhcnticully and reliably mcasurc (lit cxlcnt of achicvcmcnt and C acquisition of knowledge. The learnins outcomcs of students Ii;~vc, lo l ~ c /I sub,jectcd to valid measures. Pol- thr p\irpo'irs o f this studv. thi:: r n r n r ! l v

'. deals with students' achievement. I t is concerned with accessing whelllcr 4

I I

1

learning has really taken place and to what extent in thc individual , stpdents.' "It is a judgment regarding whether an :tctivity (inputs, ;

transactions, and outputs) has been successful or unsuccessful, acceptable or unacceptable, satisFying or not satisfying, fruitful or fruitless, productive or non - productive, effective or not effective, efficient or inefficient " (Nwana, 2001 P.3). The nature of the inclicarnrs for this assessment is very important as they must be valid enough to give dependable measures. Mctfiocis of aqsessment commonly used in Nigerian tertiary institutions include examinations - multiple choice and cssay type questions, short answers; group presentations; seminar; practical work; critical reviews; empirical projects and web - based tests. The most common form of assessment however is writing examinations. Are these examinations valid indicators of Idowledge for all students?

~n the ficld o i rneasiuemcnt and cvnlualion, concerns have been expressed about the characteristics of measuring instruments. Nwana (2001, P.3) describes these as "benchmarks against which such measures must be evaluated" and listed the most common criteria as validity, I

reliability, credibility, civility, and availability. He identifies the first two I

ns instrument-related and the other as environment-related but recognizes that ;dl opclalc juinlly arid ;rrc iuIcirt:l;tl~d. \'id~tli[y tl(.;!ls ~7111 l l ~ c

question - "Is a test measuring what i t is intended to measurc'!" Rcl~ability generally refers to how consistent and stable in indicating achievement of '

students are the test results. Credibility refers to ~ x t e n l to which conmrrrer;F if restilts i?f rh(~.l

t c ~ t regard llle gmskr or- certific~rfes rherqfore cts r-q/lectirtg corrrpetencc, -,, ...

I ~ , ~ . ~ ~ / / ~ ~ , i ~ I - i i : ,,(/,';/ (? is r i /> / i /~ , .., , , , I . . . / ~ f i a ~ ~ ~ , - i ( ,o f I ( ; I,,,'/;, i; I ; , ,

clr.cunwtmoc,r irl which the re~r f i l g htrs b r w zttdertc~kqn ill civil astrosphere ... no! exremnl to lcar!ting.. . A~tnilid.ility refers to those \vhc hcrve rzed of rltent e.g. the candidates, ed~lctafiorrnl irrstitrrtion.. . . " (Nwnnc. ' 2001: P.4)* I

Sirnil;rr tn thc concerns about validity arid reliability of tests, i:' the concern about the level of thinking skills ~ I S S C S S ~ ~ .

no~ccl Ihat lllvst cxa~ninntions do not go lxyond nsscssing Nwana (2001:;

I

cards, fashion, retipes, storics, poems, scientific experirncnts, a:? tvork, business ventures and coinmunily scsvicc. I'urc~Il i~d Renxdli believ~ ttwt legislative thinkers prcks to plan, chorcogrq~h, ctcsign, crcate,

- * compose, invent, animate, devisc, tlcvclop nnd write (Purccll 191 Renzulli, 1998, P 18). Executive thinkers arc irnplcmentct-s and l'acilil:~tors. Purccll and Kenzulli (1998, P 18) descsibc them as people who love In l ' i l l in the details of existing theories or structures, solvc ~narhcmaticnl problems, explain, clarify or articulate iniorninlio~i. 'Jhey prerer to "hcilit:ite, hclp, spccify, simplify, interpret, clarify, support, ~us ta in , :tssist and explain,"

'

unlike the judicial thinkers who prcfer to "nppt-:iisc, weigh, valuc, consider, assess judge, determine atid r+iew." Judicial zlii71kers are evaluators. Students who have judicial thi!iking styles prcl'er to nsscss c~itique and review things. Under time mi1,nr thinking styles, Sternberg ' (1 997) idcnli fies four govcrnrncnl:~l forms - rnr,~~;i~rhic, liicmlchic, oligarchic and anarchic representing Row peoplc think, ;,od sct [heir gods.

.Q IIc idcnlifics Sour different govcl-nmcni cunccrns b;~sccl on how penplc prefer to iddress issues. The global prefer to address largc abstsnct issues,

. the I.ocal arc concerned with detailcd or concrete issues, lhc inter-rial (more ',

introverted), and the external (more extroverkd). Stcrnbers also clistinguishcs libcrals (those who maximize: clmiyc) frnrv r -n~ iw .v ;~~ i \ ' c~c {t l~i~sc ?:+n minirnizc cl1:111gc). This slucly dcals only wit11 tl~c 1l11.c~ huad ~l~inking stylcs .'

- legislative, executive and judicial. P

Thinking style prc ferenccs arc 1101 abililics arcusding to Slernbcl-g but how people choose to use their abilities. Working with (127, cnlcring freslimen - I -

of the University of FIong Kong, and ~lsing moltildr: rcgwssion ani~lysis on their , wolrs in a thinking slylcs inventory based nn Sfeniherp's theory, ~ ~ n i & r s i t y ! . .

~ ~ I C I I I C V t.:,;tli\l;!;~! I:)II l i . . ~ ~ ! S I . : ~ J ~ ~ C ~ S , : l.ii J , I ~ I Y ~ : ~~~ .~ i y i i i . : ~ i . ~ ~ I ~ < ~ ; I ~ ~ V C ; l t ~ i I l ,~.Ac~ic:;~~ ; itbility lcvcls, Zvig L i Stenlbcsg (1998) ic~lud that tliinkivg stylcs scrveb as a - i predictor of academic achievement lover and above abilities. Thinking styles can I be related to several spheres of life and can thus be an important area for guidance counselors. i 1 I

The authenticity of the evaluatiun of lenrninp ctepcntls on how valid the ,

assessment instruments are. Sternberg (1997) ilirirrs thst Ihol~wncJs of kids :wc smarter than schools th ink they arc. wlicn thc srllnnls h ~ q i n tr, r.:nl111.

intclligcnces and thinking styles. Since people do better operating in their areas of prefcrcnccs, stuclcnts sl~uuld clo belter mswcring questions i n their area of thinking style prdcrence. No docitnicnted research was fo~md"by'the resckher relating sluclent's choicc of qi~esrinns to their thinking slylcs i n Nizcl-inn tertiary institutions. This study therefore set out 10:

Iclcntify !lie Illinking stylcs of a group of st~~clents Find out how tlicse styles relate to thcir chotce of questions in a non- ex;~rninrrtion sitlintinn Find out how Ihc subjccls' thinking stylcs prcfcrcnces rclatc to thcis choice pf examination qucstions.

11 bought answer lo the',qucstion; what is the composition of the thinking stylc pl-ct'crcnces of a :jiven group of undergrnduatc students? Two null hjpotheses guiclcd the s i h l y .

1-10': Thcl-c will h c nu significant ~clntio:iship bclwecn the thinking slyle prefer-cncc of sub,jccts and their choice n i qucstions in non- cuminntion situatiotis.

MO': Thcrc will be no significimt tclotionship' belwecn the thinkin? style pl-efcrcncc of subjects and their choicc of examination qllcstlons.

students therefore rnadc up the final sample. This clustcr sampling hcipccl to rcduce sources of variance that could have ariscn from q hctcrogcneous academic composition of the subjccts, wording of questions to represent thednajor thinking styles, testing condiiions etc.

Ditn collection -The rcscarchcr was intcrcsted in collecting three sets of data: (i) Thc subject's scores on the Simplified Thinking Styles Inventory

(STSI), a simplified version of Sternberg's thinking style questionnaire (Renzulli & Rcis, 1977, P. 82). All thc subjects completed this clucstionnair'e.

(ii) The choice of questions of the subjccts in a non- examination situation,

i (iii) The choice of examination qucstions for each subject. .. $

' Tlic main illsu.omcnt, tllc Simplified Tliiilhii~g Stylcs d ivcnlo~-~ (STSI) contair~ed 3 sets of vcrbs that clcsci-ibc Icgisli~tivc, cxccutivc ;tnd jurlici:d thinkers. Tltc subjects were asked to choosc thc verbs that best describe their actions and work. Where thc subject indicated thc greatest number of verbs was recorded as that subject's thinking style. For the question chuice, a list of questions in each course was given IO the subjects prior tn ~ I I C ~ : j . : ~ ~ ~ l i l i i ~ l ~ t ~ l l :15 I C \ ' ~ S ~ U I I ~ ~ I C S I I U I I S .

'I'iie questions were written in scclions and they wcr-c required to clioose a q~rastion from each section which had tl~rcc clucstiolls on [lit same subject matter (topic) but the questions were worded differently to lcflect thc thr'cc ~liinking stylcs. Thc nrrml-cr 01' qr~cstion lypcs chnscri hy cach sul>ject was rworded and the nmst l'rcqucntly chosen question type I t . . . , * ; , ~ . I ~ , , ~ ~ : . , ~ ;!:; [ ; I , . . : , L I ! I , ~ ~ ~ : I ' : , ~.ltoi(,c i!i t j ! . ~ i . , i ! ~ o i t : ~ , 111;: \c:i[-rci(.sl I . C I I ~ ! I J J I I [ ~

The test-retest reliability of the ST1 was computed using lhc Pearson correlation on the test scores of 6, s~hjcc ts retestccl after an intcrval of two weeks. It yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.459 which is significant at O.OI1.Tliis inipl~es that therc is a significant positive correlation at 0.05 level (i.e. computed P < 0.05). Theanalysis also revealed the stability of percentages of the thinking style 1 categories.

TabIe 1: Correlations of Test - Re test

-- --* .- - . - - . Vrequency Percent 1

TEST Pearson Correlation

Sig.(2-tailed)

N

IIE-TEST I'earstm Corrclntion

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

LEGISIATIVFJ 10.0

EXECUI'IV IJ 70.0

!I :; 11,. i . ' \ l , ( . : ? l t , ( l

'I'otal 30 100.0

Correlntiorl is s ipz i f i cmt (it the 0.05 lcvcl (2-tailed) r

TEST

1 .000

3 0

.459

,011

3 0

RE-'I'ES?'

.459

.O 1 1

30

1000

30

1 Table 3: Post- ~ c s l fscqucncy t;hlc 0 1 scarcs I

'The percentages are shown to bc Icgislarivc, cxccutive uncl juclicial thinkers in thc test rc-test excrcisc 108; 10%: 70%; i;?.3%; 20%; 16.7%

$

I i

F

respectively. . (I

RES ~/LTS I 'I'hc: iwo sets uT h r n collcctccl

styles and qucstion choice wcrc colwla~ccl

I

, efficient in the SPSS computer package. 'Tables 4 and 5 shvcv I l ie correlations of thinking styles and qucsticn choice; thinking sfyk and exami n:ltion qucstian choicc,

-- Valid I~EGlSl..A'l'lVi~

EXECUTIVE

JUDICIAL

Told

QUES'I'EON CHOICE Pearson Correlation

Sip. (2-tniled)

I'rrcent

10.0

73.3

16.7

100.0

l~rccl~rcncy

3

22

5

30

VAid

I'crccnl

10.0

73.3

16.7

100.0

Cuniu l ;~ t i~c

l'crccnt

10.0

83.3

100.0

area of thc 11701-e gifted and talented. The ultitnate goal of gifted education is to encourage high - end learning that utilizcs high order thinking skill. W+en educational institutions do not project such students in examination for distinction, national talent development suffcrs. Positive corrclations of thinking stylcs and choicc of questions in and out of cxarnination situations indicate students' consistent choice to work i n their thinking style prcference areas. This finding is in consonance with Sternberg's thcory (Sternberg, 1977). Scxton and Raven (1999), using the analogy of a sct of tools it1 a toolbox, l i kcncd this to :I student having a fu l l toolbo6 but consistently elects to use the halnmer. Students may use varied j17inlting styles but elect more frequently to work in thcir prcfcrrcd stylc. .$lcmbcrg (1997) insists that people have different ways of organiz\ng their thinking and those ought to be recognized and respected. > He o p i r d {hat educators need to kxch and assess according to a vai'i,@y of styles ;ind schools should be lnolc flcxiblc iwtc;d of bciug "too :sipid, authoritarian, rcgimcntcd ancl non-cseativc". Scxron and Raven (1999) wonder i f educatois unintentionally design course~csercises in such a way that certain students are doomed to f;tilul-e while ensuring that others succccd silice i n a classrooni these are students with an array of thinking stylcs.

L:viticncc poir~ts lo tllc I x l l l ~ a t cclr~c:~lor's a1 all Icvcls of

education i n Nigeria have been coping with a burst in stutlent numbers since thc Universal I'I.i~li;~sy Eclucntian of 197G. 'This tends to cncourngc greater use of multiple choice questions and s1iot.t e$say qi~estions that may not i l l ~ i ~ ) ' ~ Imtl ~ I I C I I I S ~ ~ \ ~ C S c3sily to icsliilj; hid11 - older tliillhi~lp,

skills. Couplcd with this is the fact that sc\~cr;\l 1kctrlt.m-s in tertiary s i i i s I ~ I I I I I 111111 lobpicti r c s : ui specialization are lacking i n the tcchniqucs of educational rne;\surelnent

1 and evaluation, most of thcm not being professionally qualified teachers" I : (Nwnna, 2001 P. 15). Several students thcrefosc liavc to battle through c x : ~ i ~ i i n ; ~ t i ~ ) ~ ~ s , ~ I I ~ S \ V C I ' ~ I I ~ ; ~1~1csIio11s [ha1 ;IK not i n 1 i 1 $ will1 ll~cis ltiinkir~g style prcfcrences. It will be wo~~thwliilc to invcstig[c tlic cffccl of this on thc pcsforrnnncc of sruclcnts i n examinations. Stc1.rlbei.g (1 997) made the cl<rirn Ili:~t his thcory is clesigned to hclp 1c;tr-rws c;~pitalizc 011 their slre~igllls alld cnsu~-c tila1 Icasni~lg is 0pti111im1 11y h~lpilig s ~ i ~ i h t s 1ca11i

I

. nlaterid~ in 3 variety of ways. 'The silmc applies to showing what they , Jlave Icnr'nt.

CONCLUSION In non-examiriation situations, stuclcnts opted for questions in

/: rhc~r thinking style preference. In cxominntion situations, where one I t~ould have thought they would opt for qucslions in areas OF the

curr.ictil~m thcy are more familiar willl, they also opted for questions in 1 their thinking style prcference. This ccml'ini-rs that studen~s prefer to

opcratc in thcir thinking stylc preference evcn i n cxarninntions. Styles arc I ;nd,c:~live US strengths and, given the opportunity, dudents choose to / optrate in thcir ;mas of prcfctcncc. Asscssmcn~ can m\ly bc effcclive and

fnir when n range uf assessment techniques arc uscd \i.hich together givc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i n i ~ t ~ for a fu l l range of rhinking stylcs 1.0 be useii.

< ; I lx rcscarcl~cr tlwcrcm rcco~urr~c:ntls l l i :~ l all ctluc:rlrlr-s s l ~ o ~ ~ l t l bc made iwarc of the adwntagcs of stuclcnts working in thcir arcas of strcng~h irnd preference. They sl~ould also be encouraged to diversify ils.cssment tools and items to match all t h m major thinking styles in order to makc thcir tests truly valid. These could be done by incorporating slylistic differcnccs in learning and thinking in thc cun-iculum for trainees it11d OlplIiY,l~~g \!'~II 'I~sI~O~+J ; I I I ~ U I I ~ ; I I 111: \ 'OJ' scl'\'i11;~ ~(\lli:i~.'!ol S ,

Although i t is in~portant for all students to learn to work in all the thinking styles, cwry srrlricnt should hc hclped to discover his/hcr- thi;tking style. The guidance counselors can assist with this' as i t may have :I lot of implications for thc s~urlcnts in question choice, s ~ ~ l ~ j c c t s choicc ~ u ~ r l cven career choice.

, , I a , , , ' *j'ib;:; [.[::;C,;I,::/~ b m I,\ : ~ i , ' ; : ; ~ .., , , , , , , j , ; ! ' , ; I , :~ I~ , I ;~ ; :;I ..I r t i : 8 L * ; - ! , ' t ;

I.

lliinking styles. I 'he ellcc\ ol olI1c1- ; ~ s ~ c o t s ol' (llil~liil~g SIYICS 011 S ~ U ~ C I I L S

could also br: investigated. This str~dy has established that huestion choices !rhlc to thinking stylc prcfercnccs. Fiiture i i~d ies may w h t to relate this In uchicvcmcnt of [he stutlc~ils.

Corurcil Jhr- Ed~~crr/iorlrrI I-'s~~.llolo,yi,st (NCEI') Confcrcncc a1 University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 14 -16 Ju ly 2004.

I.

Kettle, K., lienzulli, ,J.S. and Rizza, M.G. (1998). 1'1-oducts of mind: Exploring srl~clc~lt prcfcrcnccs for p~ oduct dcvclolment usir~g M YIVA 1'. . . An Expression style instrument, C;i//vtl cliilrl Ql/trrto-!\*, 2( 1). 49-60

Sternberg, Ii. J. (1988). A three - faceted motlet o creativity. In R.J.

C'atnbritlge Uiliversiry I'rcss

1 Sternberg (Ed.). The nnturc of c~cari\.it)i 1'. 1:s-117, r\;ew \trork:

i Sternberg K.,J. ( 1 997). 'J'hinking s!y lcs. Ncw Y ork. N Y : C;~nibridg(

IJni versily Press.