International Journal of English and Literature (IJEL) ISSN 2249-6912 Vol. 2 Issue 3 Sep 2012 89-104 TJPRC Pvt.

. Ltd.,

THINKING STYLE AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION: A SURVEY STUDY AMONG IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS
1

JAHANBAKHSH NIKOUPOOR, 2MAHDI ALAM & 3MOHAMMAD TAJBAKHSH

1,2

Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch, Tehran

3

Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT
Thinking style as a learner variable has been considered as a determinant factor to predict learners success or failure. The two achievement related needs - need for achievement and need for avoiding failure are related to students cognitive, affective and social development. The purpose of this study is to find out the extent to which EFL learners thinking style correlate their achievement motivation. The current study was carried out with 172 male and female EFL university students of different age, studying English translation, English literature and TEFL at BA and MA level. The two instruments used were the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised (TSI-R) and Achievement Motives Scale (AMS) to measure the two variables under the study. The findings revealed that there is a moderate positive correlation between thinking style and achievement motivation in general. Besides, the positive correlation of thinking style types with achievement motivation in general, a moderate correlation between the two subconstructs of achievement motivation with the three types of thinking style was observed.

KEYWORDS: Thinking Style, Achievement Motivation INTRODUCTION

It may be claimed that motivation may be the most important factor in individuals success or failure. Generally, motivation may be seen as a drive which may push other factors in people to move or stop moving toward their goals. In the literature available, many studies have dealt with the nature of achievement motivation and its roots (Murray, 1938; McClelland, 1951; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). On the other hand, individuals preferences to use their abilities or their thinking styles, may have an effect on how they activate their motivation to subsequently activate other cognitive, and affective domains to move toward their goals (Zhang & Sternberg, 1998; Zhang, 2002; Zhang, 2004a ). Hence, this study investigates the relationship between thinking style and achievement motivation among Iranian EFL learners.

90

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

THINKING STYLE
Traditionally, it was believed that having an account of learners individual differences may enable researchers to predict learners success and failure. However, cognitive-styles movement in the late 1960s proved it was not the case. Proposing Mental Self-Government Theory (MSG), Sternberg (1988, 1994, and 1997) asserts that as there are many ways of governing societies, there exist various ways of managing everyday activities. Peoples preferences of using their abilities in different ways are called thinking styles. Styles are neither good nor bad; they are just preference of individuals and their utilizing is the function of individuals interaction with the task and the situation in which the task is being performed. MSG delineates 13 thinking styles; namely, legislative, executive, judicial, monarchic, hierarchical, oligarchic, anarchic, global, local, liberal, conservative, internal, and external styles, which Zhang and Sternberg (2005, 2006) classified them into three major types based on empirical studies (e.g., Zhang, 1999, 2002; Zhang & Sternberg, 2001). Type I thinking styles, including the legislative, judicial, hierarchical, global, and liberal styles, are more creativity-generating and complex. Type II thinking styles, including the executive, local, monarchic, and conservative styles, suggest a norm-favoring tendency and simplistic nature. Type III styles, including the anarchic, oligarchic, internal, and external styles, depend on the stylistic demand of the specific task or contexts. MSG theory has been studied in various contexts; the United States (e.g., Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997), Spain (e.g., Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000), the Philippines (e.g., Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002), Hong Kong (e.g., Zhang & Sternberg, 2002), mainland China (Zhang, 2004b), Korea (e.g., Park, Park, & Choe, 2005), Norway (e.g., Fjell & Walhovd, 2004), and Turkey (e.g., Fer, 2005). Besides, the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg &Wagner, 1992) as an instrument used for operationalization of MSG theory has shown to have good psychometric properties (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Kaufman, 2001; Zhang, 2004a; Zhang, 2004c; Zhang, 2005) in different contexts. Definitely, thinking styles play an important role in students' cognitive (Zhang & Sternberg, 2000), affective (Zhang, 2001), and psycho-social development (Zhang, 2002); however, contradictory results in some cases (e.g., Sternberg and Grigorenko, 1995; Tso 1998; Ho 1998) testify the need to study thinking styles across more diverse contexts and in relation with other variables.

ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION (AM)

It seems that the very first reference to achievement motivation goes back to Murray (1938). In Murrays conceptualization of needs as major elements of personality, he identified two achievement-related needs - need for achievement and need for avoiding failure. He described the need for achievement as the desire to

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

91

"accomplish something difficult. To master, manipulate, or organize physical objects, human beings, or ideas. To do this as rapidly, and as independently as possible. To overcome obstacles and attain a high standard. To excel in one's self. To rival and surpass others. To increase selfregard by successful exercise of talent" (Murray, 1938, p. 164). And the need for avoidance as the desire to "... avoid humiliation. To quit embarrassing situations or to avoid conditions which may lead to belittlement: the scorn, derision or indifference of others. To refrain from action because of a fear of failure" (Murray, 1938, p. 192). Following Murray's work, McClelland (1951), and McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, (1953) viewed achievement motive as a result of presence or lack of affective reactions associated with achievement-related behavior. Consequently, they claimed the existence of two types of achievement motivation; "hope for success" concerning with positive affect and the achievement of success, and "fear of failure" concerned with negative affect and the avoidance of failure. (p, 35) Motivation to success is a function of individual's levels of the motives to achieve success and to avoid failure and success probability. The motive to approach success was defined as a stable disposition to strive for success and achievement and to experience satisfaction of being successful (Atkinson, 1957). The motive to avoid failure was defined as "a disposition to avoid failure, and/or a capacity for experiencing shame and humiliation as a consequence of failure" (Atkinson, 1957, p. 360). As these three pioneer models of achievement motivation had been proposed, many researchers studied achievement motivation relationships with other variables such as academic and job outcomes (e.g., Bing, 2003; Collins, Hanges, & Locke, 2004; Spence, Pred, & Helmreich, 1989); age (cf. Costa & McCrae, 1988; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffit, 2001; Veroff, Reuman, & Feld, 1984); perceived difficulty of tasks (Capa, Audiffren& Ragot, 2008a,b). Although achievement motivation may seem to be very similar and related to individual variables such as styles and personality traits, they are separate constructs with their own specific differences (Balkis & Isiker, 2005; Zhang & Sternberg, 1998, 2001). In the same line, some scholars focused on achievement motivation relationship with styles and personality traits (Blosser, 1972; Ismail, 1983) In the most recent study, Fan & Zhang (2009) used The Thinking Styles Inventory Revised (TSI-R; Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2003) and the Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme & Nygard, 1970; Ye & Hagtvet, 1988) to study the relationships between thinking styles and achievement motivation among Chinese university students. They found a positive correlation between the sub constructs of Type I and III thinking styles and achievement motivation to approach success (MS), and negative correlation with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF). They also found that Type II thinking styles have a negative correlation with MS, and positive correlation with MF. From among a few studies done recently ,this study

92

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

specifically investigated the relationship between these two variables among college students in Iranian context.

METHOD
Participants To conduct the study, 172 students participated to fill out the questionnaires. As shown in Table1, 71 participants were male and 101 of them were female, with their age ranging from 20 to 38 (M=26.8, SD= 4.57) (Table 2). Regarding the participants educational profile, all participants were EFL learners at BA and MA levels. The demographic specifications of the participants are shown in Table 3 and 4. Table 1. Descriptive information about gender of the participants
Frequency Valid MALE FEMALE 71 101 Percent 41.3 58.7 Valid Percent 41.3 58.7 Cumulative Percent 41.3 100

Table 2. Descriptive information about age of the participants Frequency Valid 25 AND BELOW 26 TO 30 31 AND ABOVE Total 76 69 16 161 Percent 44.2 40.1 9.3 93.6 Valid Percent 47.2 42.9 9.9 100 Cumulative Percent 47.2 90.1 100

Table 3. Descriptive information about major of the participants Frequency Valid English TRANSLATION English LITRATURE TEFL
Total

Percent 36.6 48.3 14

98.8

63 83 24
170

Valid Percent 37.1 48.8 14.1

100

Cumulative Percent 37.1 85.9 100

Table 4. Descriptive information about degree of the participants. Frequency Valid BA MA Total 147 24 171 Percent 85.5 14 99.4 Valid Percent 86 14 100 Cumulative Percent 86 100

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

93

Due to the nature of the present study, which is a correlation research, the researchers administered both questionnaires to the same group of participants at two different sessions. Questionnaires were distributed while researchers were present to provide orientation to participants and help them in case of any possible question. The participants were given 30 minutes to answer the items carefully.

INSTRUMENTS
The Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised (TSI-R; Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2003) contains 13 scales corresponding to 13 thinking styles in Sternberg's theory. TSI contained 65 items in its Chinese version and was translated into Persian and edited finally to be suited to Iranian EFL learners. The items were in sevenpoint Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe them at all) to 7 (describes them extremely well). TSIs reliability and validity proved to be reasonable in different contexts (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006). Also, more studies indicated that the TSI has good psychometric properties (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Kaufman, 2001). Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme & Nygard, 1970; Ye & Hagtvet, 1988) is designed for middle school and university students. AMS consisted of 30 items originally and was translated and adapted to the Iranian educational context. The items of AMS were in a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely incorrect) to 4 (absolutely correct) and they were divided into two equal halves, which provide information for one of the two AMS subscales: motivation to approach success (MS), and motivation to avoid failure (MF). Since its construction, AMS has been used widely in different studies (e.g., Hagtvet &Li, 2000; Man, Nygard & Gjesme, 1994; Rand, 1978). In order to account for the reasonable psychometric characteristics of the instruments, they were translated, piloted and revised. Hence, the reliability of 0.86 and 0.79 were observed for the Persian version of TSI-R and AMS respectively.

RESULTS
The descriptive statistics of the participants thinking style (M=126.80) and achievement motivation (M= 54.27) are shown table 5. Then various statistical analyses are put forward.

CORRELATION ANALYSIS
As it is clear in Table 6, using SPSS, the researchers employed a Pearson correlation to explore the relationship between students thinking style and their achievement motivation (r =0.50; p<0.05).

94

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of thinking style and achievement motivation N Thinking Style Achievement Motivation Valid N (List Wise) 172 170 170 Mini 54.00 20.00 Max 186.00 77.00 Mean 126.80 54.2706 SD 17.74707 8.30825

Table 6. Correlation between thinking style and achievement motivation

Achievement Motivation Thinking Style Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). .507 0 170
**

As a moderate positive correlation between thinking style and achievement motivation was observed, analyzing the correlation between thinking style subconstructs and achievement motivation subconstructs seems in order. To this aim, a Pearson correlation was run which showed moderate positive correlations between the achievement motivation to approach success(MS) and monarchic(r= 0.17, p<0.05),

hierarchical(r= 0.25, p<0.05), legislative(r= 0.29, p<0.05), local(r= 0.29, p<0.05), global(r= 0.15, p<0.05), executive (r= 0.37, p<0.05), internal(r= 0.29, p<0.05), conservative(r= 0.21, p<0.05) judicial(r= 0.32, p<0.05), anarchic(r= 0.35, p<0.05), liberal(r= 0.34, p<0.05); and no significant correlation with external(r= 0.11, p>0.05), oligarchic(r= 0.14, p>0.05). On the other hand, the results showed that achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF) as the second subconstruct of achievement motivation indicated moderate positive correlation with monarchic(r= 0.30, p<0.05), global(r= 0.18, p<0.05), conservative(r= 0.24, p<0.05), anarchic(r= 0.27, p<0.05), and no significant correlation with other subconstructs of thinking style (p>0.05). (Appendix 1) Since Zhang et.al (2005, 2006) partitioned these 13 sub constructs of thinking style into three major types, for the ease of interpretation, these three types are considered in further analysis. In the same line, the following table shows the positive correlation of all three types of thinking style with the achievement motivation, while type III thinking styles having the highest interface with Total Achievement Motivation (r= 0.50, p<0.05), followed by the type II (r= 0.47, p<0.05) thinking styles and type I(r= 0.32, p<0.05) respectively.(Table 7)

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

95

Table 7.Correlation between type of thinking styles and achievement motivation Total Achievement Motivation .321** .000 170 .478** .000 170 .500** .000 170

TYPE I

TYPE II

TYPE III

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Beside the correlation of thinking style types with achievement motivation in general, the correlation with two subconstructs of achievement motivation was computed. As depicted in Table 8, all thinking style types showed moderate positive correlation with achievement motivation to approach success (MS) respectively: Type I thinking style and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.41, p<0.05); type II and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.39, p<0.05); type III and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.42, p<0.05). Thinking style types also showed positive interface with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF); Type II (r= 0.27, p<0.05) and type III (r= 0.27, p<0.05); however, Type I thinking style revealed to have no significant correlation with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF). (p>0.05) Table 8. Correlation between type of thinking styles and achievement motivation sub constructs
achievement motivation to approach success(MS) ** Pearson .412 TYPE I Correlation .000 Sig. (2-tailed) 170 N ** Pearson .393 TYPE II Correlation .000 Sig. (2-tailed) 170 N ** .420 Pearson TYPE III .000 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) 170 N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF) .019 .806 170 .272 .000 170 .271 .000 170
**

**

REGRESSION ANALYSIS
A regression analysis was also run to explore the predictive power of thinking styles types in achievement motivation (Table 9). The model summary statistics contains the R value of 0.56 for multiple correlation coefficient of achievement motivation and components of thinking style. The square value of 0.31

96

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

indicates that the independent variable, thinking style, has the power to predict 31% of variations in achievement motivation. As shown in Table 10, type II and type III of thinking styles are positive predictors of achievement motivation, while type I thinking styles is a negative predictor of achievement motivation(p>0.05). Based on the table, the Beta value is a measure of how strongly each predicator (independent) variable influences the criterion (dependent) variable. The Beta is measured in units of standard deviations. For example, a Beta value of 0.365 indicates that a change of one standard deviation in type III thinking styles will result in a change of 0.365 standard deviations in the students achievement motivation. Thus, the higher the Beta value, the greater the impact of the predictor variable on the criterion variable. In table 10, type III thinking styles as subconstructs of thinking styles have the most impact on the students achievement motivation. (=0.365) Table 9. R2 table for thinking styles as the predictor of achievement motivation Model R .561a R2 Adjusted R2 Std. Error of the Estimate 0.33024

0.315

0.302

a. Predictors: (Constant), TYPE III, TYPE II, TYPE I

Table10. Regression analysis for thinking styles and achievement motivation. Model Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1 (Constant) TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III 1.679 -0.032 0.301 0.407 0.2 0.079 0.079 0.093 Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig.

-0.033 0.308 0.356

8.382 -0.41 3.837 4.38

0 0.683 0 0

a. Dependent Variable: Total Achievement Motivation .

ANOVA ANALYSIS
To investigate possible effect of gender, age, major and their interactions on Iranian EFL learners thinking styles and achievement motivation, three way ANOVA with thinking styles and achievement motivation as dependent variables was run. The ANOVA analysis revealed a strong effect of gender and major interaction (F(2,143)= 3.06, p 0.05, 2=0.041) on students thinking style (Table 11), as shown in Table 12, male students majoring in translation (M=116 ,SD=6.88) had lower scores in overall thinking styles than females (M=131 ,SD=4.05) while male students majoring in TEFL(M=135,SD=6.83) achieved higher scores in over all thinking styles than the females(M= 123,SD=5.33). Needless to mention, female students

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

97

majoring in English literature (M=125, SD=4.25) had slightly higher thinking styles than male ones (M=124, SD=6.23). (Table 12) The ANOVA analysis also showed no strong effect for gender (F(1,143)= 0.42, p=0.83>0.05, 2=0.000); age (F(2,143)= 0.112, p=0.89>0.05, 2=0.002); major(F(2,143)= 0.48, p=0.61>0.05, 2= 0.007) ; gender and age interaction (F(2,143)= 0.068, p=0.93>0.05, 2= 0.001); age and major interaction (F(4,143)=1.46, p=0.21>0.05, 2=0.039); gender, age and major interaction (F(3,143)= 0.33, p=0.80>0.05, 2=0.007); were observed.(Table 11)

Table 11. ANOVA analysis-thinking styles and gender and major interaction
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: thinking style Source Type III Sum of Squares gender age major gender * age gender * major age *major gender * age * major Error Total 13.444 71.641 312.775 43.597 1962.801 1871.847 414.245 45799.545 2638076.000 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 143 160 df Mean Square 13.444 35.820 156.388 21.798 981.401 467.962 138.082 320.277 .042 .112 .488 .068 3.064 1.461 .431 .838 .894 .615 .934 .050 .217 .731 F Sig. Partial Eta Squared .000 .002 .007 .001 .041 .039 .009

Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of gender and major interaction for thinking styles
5. gender * major Dependent Variable: Thinking Style 95% Confidence Interval gender MALE major TRANSLATION ENGLISH LITRATURE TEFL FEMALE TRANSLATION ENGLISH LITRATURE TEFL Mean 116.167 124.003 135.5 131.874 125.609 123.733 Std. Error 6.888 6.237 6.834 4.051 4.255 5.336 Lower Bound 102.551 111.675 122.032 123.867 117.198 113.186 Upper Bound 129.783 136.331 149.051 139.881 134.020 134.280

98

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

Moreover, the ANOVA analysis revealed a strong effect of gender (F(1,143)= 4.32, p=0.03<0.05, 2=0.03) on students overall achievement motivation (Table 13), as male students (M=52 ,SD=1.7) had lower scores in overall achievement motivation than females (M=57 ,SD=1.16) (Table 14) The ANOVA analysis also showed no strong effect for age (F(2,143)= 1.31, p=0.27>0.05, 2=0.018); major(F(2,143)= 0.14, p=0.86>0.05, 2= 0.002) ; gender and age interaction (F(2,143)= 0.42, p=0.65>0.05, 2= 0.006); gender and major interaction (F(2,143)= 0.87, p= 0.41>0.05, 2=0.012);age and major interaction (F(4,143)=1.67, p=0.16>0.05, 2=0.045); gender, age and major interaction (F(3,143)= 2.32, p=0.78>0.05, 2=0.047); were observed. (Table 13) Table 13. ANOVA analysis-achievement motivation and gender Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Achievement Motivation Type III Sum Source gender age major gender * age gender * major age *major gender* age * major Error Total of Squares 265.594 161.510 18.359 52.241 107.773 410.846 428.348 8667.616 479607.000 df 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 141 158 Mean Square 265.594 80.755 9.180 26.121 53.887 102.712 142.783 61.472 F 4.321 1.314 .149 .425 .877 1.671 2.323 Sig. .039 .272 .861 .655 .418 .160 .078 Partial Eta Squared .030 .018 .002 .006 .012 .045 .047

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of gender for achievement motivation 95% Confidence Interval gender MALE Mean 52.743 57.122 Std. Error 1.700 1.160 Lower Bound 49.382 54.828 Upper Bound 56.104 59.416

FEMALE

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

99

DISCUSSIONS
The present study revealed the relationship between Iranian EFL learners thinking styles and achievement motivation. Results showed a moderate positive correlation between the thinking styles and achievement motivation in general. Moreover, moderate positive correlations were observed between all three thinking style types (namely, I, II and III) and total achievement motivation as a whole. These thinking style types also showed moderate positive correlations with achievement motivation to approach success (MS) and achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF); however, the relationship was observed to be more significant between thinking types and motivation to approach success (MS). Type I thinking styles showed to have no relationship with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF). The analysis also showed thinking styles to be a moderate predictor of achievement motivation although type I thinking styles showed negative predictive power. As the third phase of analysis, the differences between the students thinking styles and achievement motivation in terms of gender, age, major and their interactions were probed; the results showed the gender and major interaction and also the gender by itself showed relationship with students thinking style and achievement motivation. The findings of this study proved to confirm the previous studies done in some related realms to some extent (Fan & Zhang, 2009), and showed contradictory findings in some other aspects. In no case thinking style types showed negative correlation with achievement motivation, whereas, Fan & Zhang (2009) came up with a negative correlation between type I and III thinking styles with achievement motivation to avoid failure. Also, they found a negative correlation between type II thinking styles and achievement motivation to achieve success. The results of the study cast light on the relationship between thinking styles and achievement motivation. This relationship has been investigated in various ways through different statistical analyses. Thinking styles as a predicator variable determined the achievement motivation to some extent. The present study seems to be pioneer in investigating the predictability of achievement motivation due to the thinking style. Although the results of this study showed some partial variation with those of relevant previous studies (Fan& Zhang, 2009), the present study confirmed that these two variables under the study should be meticulously taken into account. There may be some limitations to be mentioned for the present study. As the researchers did not have access to English or Persian version of achievement motivation, they had to translate and adapt the Chinese version of the thinking styles questionnaire to be geared to the Iranian educational contexts. Also due to the novelty of the nature of this study, the available literature about thinking style types and achievement motivation was very limited. Finally, the tools of research were questionnaires; that is, other techniques were not used for collecting data.

100

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

Due to the factors involved in educational contexts, the complexity of the learners thinking styles and the effects of many extraneous factors on achievement, the results have been challenging in different ways. It seems that similar studies of these type needs to be replicated within some larger samples in different contexts to help generalize the research findings more confidently. It is suggested that thinking style types be correlated with some other variables. Achievement motivation and thinking styles can be correlate with teachers efficacy, teachers sense of plausibility, teachers perspectives and so on. Furthermore, the psychometric characteristics of the instruments measuring the construct are expecting to be reasonable. As a last suggestion, it can be investigated to find out whether achievement motivation and thinking style could be manipulated or improved positively

REFERENCES
1.

Balkis, M., & Isiker, G. B. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and
personality types. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(3), 283294.

2.

Bernardo, A. B., Zhang, L. F., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and academic achievement among Filipino students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 149163.

3.

Bing, M. N. (2003). The integrative model of personality assessment for achievement motivation and fear of failure: Implications for the prediction of effort and performance. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(8-B).

4.

Blosser, C.R. (1972). A pilot study to explore the relationships between cognitive style, need achievement, and academic achievement motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 32 (11-A): 6088.

5.

Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their relationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 413430.

6.

Capa, R.L., Audiffren, M., Ragot, S., 2008a. The effects of achievement motivation, task difficulty, and goal difficulty on physiological, behavioral, and subjective effort. Psychophysiology 45, 859 868.

7.

Capa, R.L., Audiffren, M., Ragot, S., 2008b. The interactive effect of achievement motivation and task difficulty on mental effort. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 70, 144150.

8.

Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95117.

9.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murrays needs and the FiveFactor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258265.

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

101

10. Fan, W. & Zhang, L. F.(2009). Are achievement motivation and thinking styles related? A visit among Chinese university students. Learning and Individual Differences .19 . 299303 11. Fer, S. (2005). Validity and reliability of the Thinking Styles Inventory/Dsnme Stilleri Envanterinin Geerlik ve Gvenirlik alismasi. EDAM Egitim Danismanligi Ve Arastirmalari Merkezi, 5(1), 3367. 12. Fjell, A. M., &Walhovd, K. B. (2004). Thinking styles in relation to personality traits: An investigation of the Thinking Styles Inventory and NEO-PI-R. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45(4), 293300. 13. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 295-312. 14. Ho, H. K. (1998). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government: a mini validity study in a Hong Kong secondary school (Unpublished manuscript). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. 15. Ismail, Y. (1983). A study of the relationships between achievement motivation and learning styles of a group of Malaysian students attending Northern Illinois University. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 43 (7-A): 2304 16. Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Thinking styles in creative writers and journalists. Dissertation Abstracts International (Section B): The Sciences and Engineering, 62 (3B), 1069. 17. McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.p,35 18. McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Henry Holt 19. Park, S. K., Park, K. H., & Choe, H. S. (2005). Relationship between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(23), 8797. 20. Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and stability in personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 670683. 21. Spence, J. T., Pred, R. S., & Helmreich, R. K. (1989). Achievement strivings, scholastic aptitude, and academic performance: A follow-up to Impatience versus achievement strivings in the type A pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 176178. 22. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.

102

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

23. Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis, Intelligence and personality (pp. 169-187). New York: Cambridge University Press. 24. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press 25. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European Journal for High Ability, 6, 201-219.Tso, S.M. (1998). Correlational study of think ing styles and academic achievement. A term paper submitted for a Master's in Education degree course. The University of Hong Kong. 26. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised. Unpublished Test, Yale University. 27. Veroff, J., Reuman, D., & Feld, S. (1984). Motives in American men and women across the adult life span. Developmental Psychology, 20, 11421158. 28. Zhang, L. F. (1999). Further cross-culture validation of the theory of the mental selfgovernment. Journal of Psychology, 133(2), 165181. 29. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331348. 30. Zhang, L. F. (2001). Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement beyond selfrated abilities? Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 135(6), 621637. 31. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 331348. 32. Zhang, L. F. (2004a). Do university students' thinking styles matter in their preferred teaching approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 15511564. 33. Zhang, L. F. (2004b). Predicting cognitive development, intellectual styles, and personality traits from self-rated abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 6788. 34. Zhang, L. F. (2004c). Thinking styles: University students' preferred teaching styles and their conceptions of effective teachers. The Journal of Psychology, 138(3), 233252. 35. Zhang, L. F. (2005). Validating the theory of mental self-government in a nonacademic setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 19151925. 36. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking styles, abilities, and academic achievement among Hong Kong university students. Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 4162.

Thinking Style and Achievement Motivation: A Survey Study Among Iranian Efl Learners

103

37. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Are learning approaches and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations. The Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 469489. 38. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationship with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles (pp. 197226). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. 39. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teacher characteristics. International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 312. 40. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 153. 41. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

APPENDIX
Correlation of thinking styles subconstructs and achievement motivation subconstructs achievement motivation to approach success (MS) achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF) .302** 0 170 -0.012 0.872 170 -0.142 0.064 170 0.027 0.729 170 0.088 0.252 170
**

MONARCHIC

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.171* 0.026 170 0.11 0.152 170 .253

**

EXTERNAL

HIERARCHICAL

0.001 170 .298 0 170 .299 0 170

**

LEGISLATIVE

LOCAL

104

Jahanbakhsh Nikoupoor, Mahdi Alam & Mohammad Tajbakhsh

GLOBAL

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.159* 0.038 170 .379 0 170 .246

** **

.184* 0.017 170 0.069 0.373 170 0.148 0.054 170 .245** 0.001 170 -0.079 0.304 170 .271** 0 170 0.147 0.055 170 0.006 0.94 170

EXECUTIVE

INTERNAL

0.001 170 .216

**

CONSERVATIVE

0.005 170 .324 0 170 .353 0 170 0.149 0.052 170 .343 0 170
** ** **

JUDICIAL

ANARCHIC

OLIGARCHIC

LIBERAL

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).