Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Relationship between thinking styles and the academic achievement of occupational therapy students in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Sahar Ghanbari
. Mehdi Papi 1
. Samira Derakhshanfard 2

1 Teacher in the Department of Education (District No.6), Isfahan, Isfahan Province, Iran, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Medical Education, Education Development Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thinking styles’ effect on academic achievement is a challenging topic that has
been raised with very different results in previous studies. Since thinking styles are influenced by
the contexts, this study was conducted in the context of the occupational therapy, which is one of
the disciplines in the rehabilitation sciences in Iran and its educational studies are still developing.
The purpose of this research is to study thinking styles and their relationship with the educational
achievement of occupational therapy students at Shiraz School of Rehabilitation Sciences.
METHODS: This was a descriptive correlational study conducted at Shiraz School of Rehabilitation
Science in 2015. As sampling was considered by the census of all students in the 2nd–4th year
of Bachelor of Occupational Therapy, demographic data questionnaire and the “Short form of
Wagner‑Sternberg Thinking Styles Inventory (1992)” were distributed among all 78 students. Students’
academic achievement was also considered by grade point average obtained from the educational
office at school. The data were analyzed by descriptive and analytic statistics utilizing SPSS21
software. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and linear regression tests were used for data analysis.
RESULTS: Forty‑two students participated in this study with their personal consents. The results
revealed that hierarchic  (18.47  ± 2.54) and external  (18.47  ± 3.23) were the dominant thinking
styles of the occupational therapy students, followed by judicial, legislative, oligarchic, executive,
conservative, liberal, monarchic, anarchic, local, global, and internal thinking styles. In addition,
there was no correlation between any of the thinking styles and students’ achievement (P = 0.354).
Thinking styles predicted only 4.9% of changes in academic achievements in this study.
CONCLUSION: Thinking styles could predict only limited amount of the academic achievements
of occupational therapy students. Furthermore, as the dominant thinking styles of the occupational
therapy students are hierarchic and external, it seems that occupational therapy students prefer to
have a hierarchy of academic goals and seek tasks that provide them with the opportunity to interact
with the others.

Keywords

Education
occupational therapy
thinking
  1. Sadeghi J, Ejei J, Lavasani GM, Abaszadeh N. Making predictions
    of the academic achievement of the students of Imam Ali
    Military University based on thinking styles. A Res Q Mil Manag
    2017;17:1‑28.
    2. Sarbaz M, Banaye Yazdipour A, Kimiafar K. Use of social
    networks for learning purposes among medical and paramedical
    sciences students, Mashhad, Iran. Stud Health Technol Inform
    2019;258:105‑9.
    3. Bakhshayesh A. Investigating the relationship between thinking
    styles and learning strategies with academic performance of
    university students. Curriculum PLANNING Knowledge and
    Research in Educational Sciences2014; 14 (41): 135‑46.
    4. Hayat AA, Salehi A, Kojuri J. Medical student’s academic
    performance: The role of academic emotions and motivation.
    J Adv Med Educ Prof 2018;6:168‑75.
    5. Saif A A . T h i n k i n g s t y l e s . M o d e r n E d u c a t i o n a l
    Psychology (Psychology of Learning and Instruction). 12. 7th ed.
    Tehran: Dowran Publishing Company; 2017. p. 287‑93.
    6. Lei S. A research on Thinking Styles and Communication
    Strategies. International Conference on Social Sciences, Education
    and Management (SOCSEM 2018): Francis academic press; 2018.
    p. 877‑82.
    7. Zhang LF. Thinking styles and cognitive development. J Genet
    Psychol 2002;163:179‑95.
    8. Fan J. The role of thinking styles in career decision‑making
    self‑efficacy among university students. Think Skills Creat
    2016;20:63‑73.
    9. Safari Y, Yosefpoor N, Amiri R. Assessing dimensions of students’
    thinking style and its relationship with academic performance
    in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. J Med Educ Dev
    2015;8:38‑46.
    10. Bernardo AB, Zhang LF, Callueng CM. Thinking styles and
    academic achievement among Filipino students. J Genet Psychol
    2002;163:149‑63.
    11. Richmond AS, Conrad L. Do Thinking styles predict academic
    performance of online learning? Int J Technol Teach Learn
    2012;8 (2): 108‑117.
    12. Bodaghi S, Andisheh Z, Mashhadi A. Investigation the
    Relationship between Thinking Styles and Student Achievement
    of Mashhad Ferdowsi University. Kermanshah, Iran: National
    Congress of Family Psychology; 2017.
    13. Ghanbari S, Haghani F, Akbarfahimi M. Practical points for
    brain‑friendly medical and health sciences teaching. J Educ Health
    Promot 2019;8:198.
    14. Ekwochi U, Osuorah DC, Ohayi SA, Nevo AC, Ndu IK, Onah SK.
    Determinants of academic performance in medical students:
    Evidence from a medical school in south‑east Nigeria. Adv Med
    Educ Pract 2019;10:737‑47.
    15. Kim M. The relationship between thinking style differences
    and career choices for high‑achieving students. Roeper Rev
    2011;33:252‑62.
    16. Hovencamp SA. The Relationship between Thinking Styles and
    Emotional Intelligence: An Exploratory Study of Retail Managers.
    Capella University; 2014.
    17. Bishop C, Foster C. Thinking styles: Maximizing online supported
    learning. J Educ Comput Res 2011;44:121‑39.
  2. 18. Fan J, Zhang Lf, Chen C. Thinking styles: Distinct from
    personality? Pers Individ Dif 2018;125:50‑5.
    19. Hunnicutt RL. The Relationship of the Learning Styles of High
    School Teachers and Computer use in the Classroom. Citeseerx;
    2005.
    20. Zhang LF. Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles for
    academic performance. J Psychol 2004;138:351‑70.
    21. Pouratashi M, Zamani A. Assessing and examining the
    relationship of thinking styles and goal orientation with academic
    performance. Educ Psychol 2017;13:59‑81.
    22. Zhang LF. Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement
    beyond self‑rated abilities? J Psychol 2001;135:621‑37.
    23. Barreiro OM. Cognitive Ability, Thinking Styles, Emotional
    Intelligence, and Their Impact on Academic Performance. Walden
    University; 2014.
    24. Lee S. Learning and study strategies inventory scores and
    academic performance of occupational therapy students. Ame J
    Occup Ther 2018;4 Suppl 1:1.
    25. Brown T, Murdolo Y. The relationship between approaches
    to study and academic performance among Australian
    undergraduate occupational therapy students. Aust Occup Ther
    J 2017;64:218‑25.
    26. Bonsaksen T. Predictors of academic performance and education
    programme satisfaction in occupational therapy students. Br J
    Occup Ther 2016;79:361‑7.
    27. AndonianL. Emotional intelligence, self‑efficacy, and occupational
    therapy students’ fieldwork performance. Occup Ther Health
    Care 2013;27:201‑15.
    28. Wium AM, Pitout H, Human A, Du Toit PH. An analysis of
    thinking preferences across three health care disciplines. Innov
    Educ Teach Int 2017;54:33‑41.
    29. Lalor A, Yu ML, Brown T, Thyer L. Occupational therapy
    international undergraduate students’ perspectives on
    the purpose of practice education and what contributes to
    successful practice learning experiences. Br J Occup Ther
    2019;82:367‑75.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 10, Issue 4
April 2020
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us