Thinking styles' socialization and their roles in student development

Three of the major controversial issues in the field of intellectual styles are: 1) whether or not styles can be changed; 2) whether or not styles are value-laden; 3) whether styles are distinct from or they are part of personality traits. The main purpose of this research was to address these three issues by 1) exploring the socialization process of students’ thinking styles through tracing the change of thinking styles over one year and examining the competing influence of students’ perceived parenting styles, perceived learning environment, and personality traits on their thinking styles; and 2) exploring the role of thinking styles in students developmental outcomes with regard to career decision self-efficacy and subjective well-being. The research adopted a quantitatively-driven mixed method design and it involved three phases: the pilot study (a quantitative study), the main study (a longitudinal, quantitative study), and the follow-up study (a qualitative study). The pilot study validated a series of inventories that were subsequently utilized in the main study and preliminarily explored the relevant relationships among three hundred and forty-one Chinese university students from Shanghai, mainland China. In the main study, nine hundred and twenty-six students from the same university responded to a questionnaire consisting of the modified inventories and some demographic information at the beginning of an academic year. One year later, they responded to the same questionnaire again. After that, based on the results of the main study, 29 students were selected to participate in a follow up study that involved individual face-to-face interviews. Results of the main study generally supported the research hypotheses. With regard to the malleability of thinking styles, the research found that students’ thinking styles changed over one year and the change of thinking styles can be at least partially attributed to the two environmental factors (i.e., parenting styles and learning environments). These findings suggest that, albeit relatively stable, thinking styles can be socialized/changed. With regard to the role of thinking styles in student development, results indicated that mainly Type I thinking styles (characterized by creativity, nonconformity, and autonomy) positively contributed to students’ career decision self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Furthermore, Type I thinking styles were also major mediators in the relationships of parenting styles and learning environments to career decision self-efficacy and subjective well-being. These findings suggest that thinking styles are value-laden, with Type I thinking styles being more adaptive than other styles. With regard to the relationship between personality and thinking styles, results indicated that thinking styles and personality traits overlapped with each other to limited extents and both of them made unique contributions to student development. Moreover, thinking styles were more malleable than personality traits. These findings suggest that styles are distinct from rather than subordinate to personality traits. Results from the follow-up interview study further confirmed the results of the main study and provided explanatory information on how the identified relationships happened. Generally speaking, the present research has both theoretical and practical implications. It significantly contributes to the discussion on the aforementioned major controversial issues in the field of styles. Furthermore, based on the research findings, specific suggestions on how to optimize the development of students’ thinking styles are provided for parents, teachers, and university administrators. Finally, the limitations of this research and the recommendation for future studies are discussed.published_or_final_versionEducationDoctoralDoctor of Philosoph