INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
COGNITIVE RESEARCH IN SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING AND EDUCATION
IJCRSEE
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE) Volume 3, Issue 2, December 2015.
Editor in chief:
Dr. Lazar Stošić
Publishers:
The Association for the development of science, engineering and education Address: Prvi maj 18, 17500 Vranje, Serbia
Phone: +381 17 400 165, + 381 63 700 4281 www.urnio.org.rs
E-mail: [email protected] College of professionals studies educators
Pivarska b.b. 18220 Aleksinac, Serbia www.vsvaspitacka.edu.rs For publishers: Dr. Lazar Stošić Dr. Stojan Obradović Print: Aurora O. D. Vranje Circulation: 200 copies Translator: Dr. Igor Petrović
Indexed & Abstracted:
Thomson Reuters ID, EBSCO, Index Copernicus, DOAJ, SCIndeks, e-Library RU, COBISS. SR, MIAR, Sherpa/Romeo, GIF global impact factor, CNKI, Turkish Education Index, ROAD, SCIPIO - Scientific publishing & information online, Journal Impact Factor, GoogleScholar, Dialnet, InnoSpace - SJIF Scientific, Harvard University Library, WorldCat, Open Academic, PUBDB DESY Publication Database, Journals Index (OAJI), InfoBase Index, J-Gate, Cabell’s Directory, JOUR Informatics, Academic Journals Database, Sjournals Index, WorldWideSci-ence Sources, Scientific Indexing Services (SIS), Cite Factor, UlrichsWeb, TIB-German National Library of Science and Technology, Academia.edu, DRJI, Science Central, Electronic Journals Library, Academic Keys, ETH-Bibliothek, BASE, Journal Seeker, Researchbib, SAIF Impact fac-tor, PBN, OAJ, LibSearch, JournalTOCs, HOTid, .Scribd...
Global Impact Factor for 2013=0.514, 2014=0,678, 2015=0.765
TECHNIQUE OF THINKING STYLE EVALUATING
Dr. Alla Belousova, Dr. Vlada Pishchik...1 INVESTIGATING FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ LEARNING IN A TEAM TEACHING SETTING
Dr. Brenda L Killingsworth, Dr. Yajiong Xue...9 OPTIMAL VIEWING POSITION OF PARTIALLY CONNECTED AND UNCONNECTED WORDS IN ARABIC
Dr. Deia Ganayim...17 THE USE OF TEACHING AIDS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE FOR STUDENTS’ MUSIC EDUCATION
Dr. Miomira M. Đurđanović...33 THE EFFECTS OF THE PEDAGOGICAL EXPERIENCE ON THE QUALITY OF TEACHER EDUCATION
Dr. Tatjana Koteva-Mojsovska, Dr. Suzana Nikodinovska Bancotovska...41 QUESTIONING CONVENTIONS: ARE PRODUCT CONVENTIONS TRADING OFF THE USABILITY OF PRODUCTS FOR SHORT TERM USER SATISFACTION
Mr. Bryan Gough Young, Dr. Andrew Wodehouse, Mrs. Marion Sheridan...47 SELF-IMAGE IN CHILDREN OF DIVORCED PARENTS
MSc Slagjana Angjelkoska, Dr. Gordana Stankovska, MSc Dimitar Dimitrovski...59 KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN AN ORGANIZATION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
Dr. Dana Mesner Andolšek, Stanislav Andolšek...65 THE PREPARATION OF A SPECIALIST IN NETWORKING CULTURAL- EDUCATIONAL SPACE OF UNIVERSITY
Dr. Zinaida Kekeeva, Dr. Zhannat Sardarova, Dr. Gulzhan Ergalieva...77 ENHANCING TEACHER COMPETENCIES WITH EMOTIONAL AND ETHICAL CAPACITY
Dr. Valentina Gulevska, Dr. Tatjana Atanasoska...85 REALISATION OF AESTHETIC-COGNITIVE FUNCTION OF THE READINGS IN MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE TEACHING FROM FIRST TO THIRD GRADE
MSc Vesna Horvatovikj...91 AUTHOR GUIDELINES...97 PARTNERS AND SPONSORS...103
Research in Science, Engineering and
Education
(IJCRSEE)
EDITORIAL
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Educa-tion (IJCRSEE) is an open access international peer reviewed multidisciplinary journal that publishes professional, scientific and review papers in the field of humanities, pedagogical sci-ences, psychology, IT, mathematics and other sciences. Editorial Board strives to provide a pos-sibility for the scientists of different fields to publish the results of their research, technical and theoretical studies. IJCRSEE is multidisciplinary in approach, and will publish a great range of papers: reports of qualitative case studies, quantitative experiments and surveys, mixed method studies, action researches, meta-analyses, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues, etc. IJCRSEE publisher is The Association for the Development of Science, Engineering and Education.
The journal publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, including studies of cogni-tive processes, emotions, perception, memory processes, thinking, problem solving, planning, training, studies of language and consciousness. The journal focuses on studies in the field of education, human performance and studies of fundamental cognitive skills in everyday life. The journal combines works in the field of psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, phi-losophy, computer science and neuroscience. The articles on the results of scientific research in various fields of cognitive science that concentrate on multidisciplinary audience are of top priority for the journal. The audience of our journal – is, in the first place, researchers in the field of cognitive science and related fields, including psychologists, educational researchers, anthropologists, philosophers, linguists, neuroscientists, programmers.
IJCRSEE receive a Global Impact Factor for 2013=0.514, 2014=0,678, 2015=0.765 and
IC Journals Master List 2012 - ICV 2012: 5.31, ICV 2013 - 6.76, ICV 2014 - 81.68
IJCRSEE has regular sections: Original Research, Review Articles, Studies and articles, Book Reviews, Case Studies, and is published twice a year. This journal provides an immedi-ate open access to its contents, which makes research results available to the public based on the global exchange of knowledge. The journal also offers access to uncorrected and corrected proofs of articles before they are published.
The primary aim of IJCRSEE is to provide relevant scientific results for novice and expert
scholars and to enable researchers to publish and share their work with the academe throughout the world. The aim of the journal is to promote and strengthen the quality of research in the field of science, engineering and education.
The scope of IJCRSEE is deliberately broad in terms of both topics covered and
disci-plinary perspective:
• Cognitive Research in Science • Cognitive Research in Engineering • Cognitive Research in Education • Cognitive Pedagogics
• Cognitive Androgogics • Cognitive Psychology • Psycholinguistics
• Cognitive Neurophysiology
• Cognitive Aspects of Biology, Physiology, Neurophysiology • Cognitive Aspects of Sociology, Political Science
• Cognitive Problems of Economics and Management • Cognitive Aspects: Sport Culture
• Cognitive Aspects: Methodology of Knowledge • Text Processing and Cognitive Technologies • Educational technology
IJCRSEE has an international editorial board of eminent experts in their field from Russia, Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Hong Kong, Greece, Serbia, Australia, United Kingdom, USA, Turkey, Nigeria, Bulgaria, Romania, Spain, Italy, Republic of Srpska, Croatia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), India, China, Thailand, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Jordan, and Iran. We are confident that IJCRSEE will attract a great number of editors, eminent scientists in the field. The selection will be based on the activities of the editors and their desire to contribute to the development of the journal.
IJCRSEE provides a platform for academics and scientists professionals to refer and dis-cuss recent progress in the fields of their interests. Authors are encouraged to contribute articles which are not published or not under review in any other journal.
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis: the originality of its con-tribution to the field of scholarly publishing, the soundness of its theory and methodology, the coherence of its analysis, its availability to readers (grammar and style). Normal turn-around time for the evaluation of manuscripts is one to two months from the date of receipt.
Submission of an original manuscript to the journal will be taken to mean that it repre-sents original work not previously published, that is not being considered elsewhere for publi-cation; that the author is willing to assign the copyright to the journal as per a contract that will be sent to the author just prior to the publication and, if accepted, it will be published in print and online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
The requirement for the submission of a paper implies that it has not been published before; that it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else; that its publication has been approved by all co-authors.
When considering submitting an article, the Editors have provided the following criteria to assist authors with preparing their submissions:
Originality – The author should ensure that the manuscript has not been previously
pub-lished nor is being considered by another journal.
Plagiarism - Content should be properly referenced. Be sure to check the paper for
pos-sible accidental plagiarism. Some free plagiarism checker websites include: http://www.ithen-ticate.com/, www.antiplagiat.ru, www.grammarly.com, www.plagtracker.com or www.dupli-checker.com
Writing – Please write in good English (American or British usage is accepted, but not a
mixture of these). For non-native English speakers, and perhaps even for some native English speakers, grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation of the texts are very important for an effec-tive presentation. Hence, manuscripts are expected to be written in a clear, cogent, and readily understandable by an international readership.
Manuscripts must be submitted online. Electronic submission reduces the editorial pro-cessing and reviewing time. As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off
consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which can be found in the section About the Journal.
If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a
Blind Review have been followed.
A manuscript goes through the peer review process. Authors submit manuscripts to Edi-torial office via the online system. The acknowledgement letter should be sent to the author to
confirm the receipt of the manuscript. The Chief Editor first reviews manuscripts. Chief Editor is assisted by Section Editors (could also be Co- or Associated Editors). The Editor assigns a Section Editor to see the manuscript through the complete review process and return it with a recommendation or decision. The manuscript is checked to see if it meets the scope of the Jour-nal and its formal requirements. If it is incorrect or unsuitable, the author should be informed and the manuscript filed (or returned if requested) – direct rejection. Manuscripts that are not suitable for publication in the Journal are rejected. A Rejection letter is sent to the author stating the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of the Journal, and formally abides by the Instructions to Authors it is sent out for review. Depending on the type of paper, it could be accepted immediately for publication (invited Editorial, Book review etc) by the Chief Editor.
Check that the manuscript has been written and styled in accordance with the Journal style; that it carries an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct reference system etc. and check that the correct blinding system has been used. If anything is missing ask the author to complete it before the manuscript is sent out for review.
The manuscript is sent out for review. The reviewer reads and evaluates the manuscript and eventually sends a review report to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-6 weeks depending on the discipline (more time is usually given to papers in the humanities and social sciences). Make sure to provide the reviewer with clear instructions for the work, e.g. outlined in the form of a Review report or a number of questions to be considered.
Based on the reviewers’ comments the Chief Editor makes a decision to: • Accept the manuscript without further revision
• Accept after revision • Ask authors to resubmit • Reject
An acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final manuscript is forwarded to produc-tion. Sometimes, the authors are requested to revise in accordance with reviewers’ comments and submit the updated version or their manuscript to the Chief Editor. The time for review can be set to 2-8 weeks depending on the discipline and type of additional data, information or argument required. The authors are requested to make substantial revisions to their manuscripts and resubmit for a new evaluation. A rejection letter is sent to the author and the manuscript is archived. Reviewers might be informed about the decision.
After review a manuscript goes to the Copy Editor who will correct the manuscript con-cerning the correct referencing system, confirmation with the journal style and layout. When Copy Editor finishes his/her work they send manuscripts to the Layout editor.
Layout Editor is responsible for structuring the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article, activating necessary links and preparing the manuscript in the various formats, in our case PDF and HTML format. When Layout Editor finishes his/her job they send manuscripts to Proof Editor.
Proof Editor confirms that the manuscript has gone through all the stages and can be published.
substantive fields; they are looking forward to substantial improvement of educational pro-cesses and outcomes.
Editor in Chief Dr. Lazar Stošić
Global Impact Factor for 2013=0.514, 2014=0,678, 2015=0.765
IC Journals Master List 2012 - ICV 2012: 5.31, - ICV 2013 - 6.76, ICV 2014 - 81.68
International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE)
Address: Prvi maj 18, 17500 Vranje, Serbia Phone: +381 17 400 165, + 381 63 700 4281 Web: www.ijcrsee.com
Dr. Lazar Stošić, Editor in Chief International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), Serbia
President of The Association for the Development of Science, Engineering and Educa-tion, Serbia
College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia
Editorial Advisory Board
Dr. Alla Belousova, Academy of Psychology and Pedagogy, Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Dr. Aneta Barakoska, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Macedonia
Dr. Tatiana V. Chernigovskaya, St. Petersburg State University, Russian Federation Dr. Alexandrov I. Yuri, Institute of Psychology Russian Academy of sciences, Head of the lab. Neural Bases of Mind, Russian Federation
Dr. Iiro P. Jääskeläinen, Department of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, Espoo, Finland
Dr. Sonja Veličković, College of professional studies educators, Aleksinac, Vice president of The Association for the Development of Science, Serbia
International Editorial Board members
Dr. Nickolay V. Dvoriantchikov, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, faculty of juridical psychology, Russian Federation
Dr. Svetlana Masalova, Chair of Philology and Art Institute of Professional Development of Education Workers, Russian Federation
Dr. Abrosimova Larisa, The English Language Chair Language and Literature Depart-ment Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Dr. Milena Kuehnast, Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS) Berlin, Germany Dr. Deia Ganayim, Arab Center for Mind, Brain & Behavior - ACMBB, Israel Dr. Jonathan W. Britmann, Polish Society of Clinical Psychology, Poland Dr. Srimoyi Bhattacharyya, Jadavpur University, India
Dr. Marina Bogdanova, Department of Philosophy, Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Dr. Mónica Martínez-Gómez, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain
Dr. Tonia De Giuseppe, Departmente in Science of Language of Society, Policy and Edu-cation( DISPSC) University of Salerno, Italy
Dr. Felice Corona, University of Salerno - Department of Medicine and Surgery, Italy Dr. Vladimir Janković, The University of Manchester, United States
Dr. Ljupčo Kevereski, Macedonian association for gifted and talented, Ohrid, Macedonia Dr. Isak Karabegović, Universtiy of Bihać, Technical faculty, Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Prof. Dr. Nenad Suzić, University of Banja Luka, Faculty of Philosophy, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska
Academic prof. Radenko S. Krulj, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Education, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Academic prof. dr. med. Angel Džambazovski, Institute of Applied Kinesiology with physiotherapy and chiropractic, Macedonia
Dr. Tsonkova Dimitrinka Georgieva, St. Cyril and St. Metodius University of Veliko Trnovo, Bulgaria - Faculty of Education, Department Theory and Methods of Teaching Physi-cal Education, Bulgaria
Dr. Velina Slavova, New Bulgarian University Department of Computer Science Sofia, Bulgaria
Dr. Bakaeva Alexandrovna Irina, Lecturer on the educational psychology chair, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation
Dr. Mariana Neagu, Department of English Language and Literature Faculty of Letters, Dunărea de Jos University of Galați, Romania
Dr. Zinaida Kekeeva, Kalmyk State University, Republic of Kalmykia, Russian Federation Dr. Tatyana Nadolinskaya, Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute A. P. Chekhov’s name, Russian Federation
Dr. Natalia Sklyarova, Southern State University, Russian Federation Dr. Marius Costel Esi, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
Dr. Nedelea Alehandru Mircea, Stefan Cel Mare Universitz of Suceava, Romania
Dr. Zeshui Xu, College of Sciences, PLA University of Science and Technology Nanjing, Jiangsu 210007, China
Dr. Yejun Xu, Hohai University, China
Dr. Hong-Mei Li, School of Marxism studies, Northeast Petroleum University, China Dr. Suchitporn Lersilp, The faculty of Associated Medical Science, Chiang Mai Univer-sity, Thailand
Dr. Supawadee Putthinoi, The faculty of Associated Medical Science, Chiang Mai Uni-versity, Thailand
Dr. Nopasit Chakpitak, College of Arts, Media and Technology, Chiangmai University, Thailand 50220, Thailand
Dr. Jue-Sam Chou, Information management department of Nanhua University,Taiwan, Taiwan, Province of China
Dr. Samson O Fadiya, Girne American University, Turkey Dr. Girija Chetty, University of Canberra, Australia
Dr. Sabina Vidulin, Music Academy in Pula, University of Juraj Dobrila in Pula, Croatia Dr. José M. Merigó, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street West, M156PB Manchester, United Kingdom
Dr. Ali Nouri, Malayer University, Humanities Faculty, Department of Educational Sci-ences, Iran
Dr. Siniša Opić, Faculty of teacher education, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Professor Spyros Hoidas, Department of language and linguistics, Faculty of English Language and Literature National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
PhD Candidate Dimitrios Zogris Papadopoulos, “South West University - Neofit Rilski” Department of Psychology, Bulgaria
Dr. Miomira M. Đurđanović, The Faculty of arts, Niš, Serbia
Dr. Sanja Filipović, Faculty of Fine Arts, Art University in Belgrade, Serbia Dr. Slađana Zuković, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
Dr. Stojan Obradović, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia Dr. Danica Stolić, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia Dr. Daliborka Popovic, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia Dr. Dragana Stanojevic, University of Niš, Teacher Training Faculty in Vranje, Serbia Dr. Jelena Ž. Maksimović, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, Serbia
Dr. Zvezdan Arsić, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Education, Kosovska Mitro-vica, Serbia
Dr. Goran Ajdinski, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Macedonia Dr. Vladimir Trajkovski, Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Special Education and Reha-bilitation, Macedonia
Dr. Sonja Petrovska, Faculty of educational Sciences, University ,,Goce Delcev,, - Stip Dr. Vera Stojanovska, Faculty of Philosophy, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Macedonia
Macedonia
Dr. Tatjana Atanasoska, Faculty of Education Vasko Karangelevski, Bitola, Republic of Macedonia
Dr. Daniela Dimitrova-Radojichikj, Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Philosophy, University “Ss Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje, Macedonia
Dr. Borce Kostov, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Macedonia
Dr. Elena Achkovska Leshkovska, Department of Psychology,Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje, Macedonia
Dr. Violeta Arnaudova, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Macedonia
Dr. Suzana Miovska Spaseva, Institute of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy, “Ss Cyril and Methodius” University in Skopje, Macedonia
Dr. Orhideja Shurbanovska, University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, Macedonia
Reviewer board members
Dr. Elena Brunova, Tyumen State University, Russian Federation Dr. Natalia Alieva, Russian Federation
Dr. Jonathan W. Britmann, Polish Society of Clinical Psychology, Poland Dr. Elena Agapova, Southern (Uzhny) Federal University, Russian Federation Dr. Deia Ganayim, Arab Center for Mind, Brain & Behavior - ACMBB, Israel
Dr. Nickolay V. Dvoriantchikov, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, faculty of juridical psychology, Russian Federation
Dr. Srimoyi Bhattacharyya, Jadavpur University, India
Dr. Mónica Martínez-Gómez, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain
Dr. Isak Karabegović, Universtiy of Bihać, Technical faculty, Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Dr. Andrej Kohont, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Slovenia
Dr. Dana Mesner Andolšek, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Dr. Tonia De Giuseppe, Departmente in Science of Language of Society, Policy and Edu-cation( DISPSC) University of Salerno, Italy
Dr. Felice Corona, University of Salerno - Department of Medicine and Surgery, Italy Dr. Bakaeva Alexandrovna Irina, Lecturer on the educational psychology chair, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation
Dr. Valentina Gulevska, University “St. Kliment Ohridski” - Bitola, Faculty of Education, Macedonia
Dr. Tatjana Atanasoska, Faculty of Education Vasko Karangelevski, Bitola, Republic of Macedonia
Dr. Nedelea Alehandru Mircea, Stefan Cel Mare Universitz of Suceava, Romania
PhD Candidate Dimitrios Zogris Papadopoulos, “South West University - Neofit Rilski” Department of Psychology, Bulgaria
Mona Fazeli, Academy of Persian Language and Literature (APLL), Iran
Dr. Shouzhen Zeng, College of Computer and Information , Zhejiang Wanli University, China
Dr. Marius Costel Esi, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
Dr. Alex L.S. Chan, Division of Social Sciences Room 5301, Academic Building 2 Com-munity College of City University Tat Che Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong
Dr. Guiwu Wei, Chongqing University of Arts and ScienceS, China
Dr. Sonja Petrovska, Faculty of educational Sciences, University ,,Goce Delcev,, - Stip Dr. Elizabeta Tomevska Ilievska, Institute of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University-Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Dr. Sabina Vidulin, Music Academy in Pula, University of Juraj Dobrila in Pula, Croatia Dr. Snezana Stavreva Veselinovska, Faculty of Educational Sciences University “Goce Delcev” Stip, R. Macedonia
Dr. Elena Dimova Rizova, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, Republic of Macedonia Dr. Sanja Filipović, Faculty of Fine Arts, Art University in Belgrade, Serbia
Dr Mićo Miletić, College of professionals studies Aleksinac, Serbia
Dr. Nebojsa J. Dimitrijevic, College of Applied Vocational Studies Vranje, Serbia Dr. Miroljub Joković, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia Dr. Milutin Djuričković, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia Dr. Maria Vyshkvyrkina, Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Dr. Natalia Sklyarova, Southern State University, Russian Federation
Dr. Gufran Ahmad Ansari, Department of Information Technology, College of Computer, Qassim University, Al-Qassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
Dr. Milena Bogdanović, University of Niš, Teacher Training Faculty in Vranje, Serbia, Serbia
Dr. Girisha Garg, Babu Banarsi Das Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad, India
Dr. Hemanta Kumar Baruah, Department of Statistics Gauhati University Guwa-hati-781014-03 Assam: India, India
Dr. Omaima Nazar Ahmad Al-Allaf, CIS Department, Faculty of Sciences and Informa-tion Technology, AL-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman 11733, P.O Box: 130, Alyaa Queen Airport Street, Jordan
Dr. Mohammed Karim, Faculty of Sciences Dhar El Mehraz University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah FEZ, Morocco
Dr. Gordana Nikola Stankovska, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, Uni-versty State of Tetovo, Macedonia
Dr. Kristijan Džambazovski, UGD Štip, Macedonia
MSc Marina Mitkova Vasileva, OOU “Sveti Kiril i Metodij” Centar, Skopje, Macedonia MSc Ankica-Simona Kovačević, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia
MSc Kundan Lal Verma, Founder and Independent Researcher, Ujjawal Research Group, New Delhi, India
Copy editor
Dr. Igor Petrović, College for Preschool Teachers, Aleksinac, Serbia
Layout editor
B.Sc. Kokan Jankovic, B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, profile: computer science and IT, Faculty of Electronic Engineering, Nish, Serbia
Proof editor
Dr. Lazar Stošić, College of professionals studies educators, Aleksinac, Serbia President of The Association for the Development of Science, Engineering and Education, Serbia
Dr. Alla Belousova, Academy of Psychology and Pedagogy, Southern Federal University, Russian Federation
Dr. Aneta Barakoska, Faculty of Philosophy, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Macedonia
Abstract. The results of psychometric analysis of the new technique of thinking styles diagnostics are presented. The fundamental principles of thinking style concept by A. Belousova, according to which the think-ing style is determined by the dominance of a person’s function in the structure of thinking activity during the problem solving, are covered. In accordance with A. Belousova’s ideas that the collaborative thinking activ-ity as a self-organizing system is carried out by means of functions assumed by each participant: function of generating ideas, the function of selection (review and evaluation of information), functions of sense trans-fer and function of implementation. Thinking of adult, acting as a complex self-organizing system, combines the same functions: generation, selection, sense transfer and implementation. In this connection, we believe that the thinking style is defined as a characteristic set of functions actualized by a person in different situations of the problem solving. Domination of generation func-tion determines the development of initiative thinking style, selection - critical, sense transfer - administrative, implementation - practical. The results of testing the reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for the thinking style diagnostics on a representative sample of Russians are given. The author’s version of the question-naire is presented.
Keywords: functions, thinking style, initiative, critical, administrative, practical.
1. INTRODUCTION
The growth of practical paradigm in psychology promotes the needs of psycholo-gists for available modern express-methods that contribute to the solution of diagnostics tasks. In this context, the aim of this article
was to prove the new concept of thinking styles and presentation of validation results of the original technique that measures these thinking styles.
The concept of “thinking style” was in-troduced into a categorical system of psycho-logical science, especially through the works of Harrison, A. F. and Bramson, R. M. (1984),
Herrmann, N. (1995), Sternberg, R.J. (2002). In the broadest meaning of the word, think-ing style is understood as the mental structures that allow people to process information and solve problems in a certain way.
The theory of thinking styles by Harri-son, A. F. and BramHarri-son, R. M. was very popu-lar in Russia. In this theory, thinking style is understood as a system of intellectual strate-gies to which a person is predisposed by vir-tue of one’s own individual characteristics. In accordance with the system of cognition that dominated in the research activity of the sci-entists, A. F. Harrison, R. M. Bramson identi-fied certain thinking styles: dialectic (Hegel) - synthesizer; philosophical idealism (Kant) - idealist; philosophical pragmatism (E. A. Sin-gler) - pragmatist; symbolic logic (Leibniz) - analyst; empiricism (Locke) - realist. They identified 5 thinking styles: synthesizer, ideal-ist, pragmatideal-ist, analyst, realist (Harrison, A. F. and Bramson, R. M., 1984).
Sternberg, R. J. (2002) defines the think-ing style as the person’s preferred way to use existing abilities. By analogy with the mental self-government of the state, he identifies in the structure of mental self-government of the person following elements: functions, forms, levels, fields, orientation. All these elements of mental self-government are the basis for the formation of the corresponding thinking styles: legislative, executive, judicial, mono-archical, hiermono-archical, oligmono-archical, anarchic, global, local, external, internal, conservative, progressive (Sternberg, R. J., 2002).
TECHNIQUE OF THINKING STYLE EVALUATING
Dr. Alla Belousova, Head of Educational Psychology Department, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia;
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Vlada Pishchik, Head of Psychology Department, Institute of Management, Business and Law, Rostov-on-Don, Russia;
E-mail: [email protected] Received: August, 20.2015. Revised: November, 27.2015. Accepted: December, 02.2015. Original Article UDK 159.955.075 Corresponding Author
Dr. Alla Belousova, Head of Educational Psychology Department, Southern Federal University,
Rostov-on-Don, Russia;
The very idea of identification of func-tions seems very close to us, especially in the part where R. J. Sternberg uses the correlation and distribution of functions in the human ac-tivity as one of the criteria for identification of styles. In continuation of the dialogue, we want to say that we understand the human thinking not only as a self-governing system, but also as a self-organizing system, the im-plementation of which is made by means of functions. We think that functions hide more important mechanisms of self-organization of thinking in problem solving processes that are associated with the production of different new formations. Thus, criteria identified by R. J. Sternberg that characterize the thinking style, refer us to the issues of self-organization of thinking during the interaction of the person with the world, but also raise questions on the self-organization determination and the role in these processes of the emerging new forma-tions, other people in a person’s life. It seems that the possibility of correlation of the vari-ous functions performed by a person with the thinking style is heuristic.
Thus, in works of R. J. Sternberg, A. F. Harrison, R. M. Bramson, the ideas about the thinking style as a flexible, dynamic forma-tion that changes depending on the situaforma-tion, type of tasks, the age of the person, were de-veloped. The concept of thinking style profile is introduced: for a person is characteristic not one style but the profile of styles.
Another line of thinking styles studies leads to the research field of psychophysi-ological mechanisms of individual differences in their conditioning of hemispheric asymme-try. In works of R. W. Sperry, R. Ornstein, H. Mintzberg, M. Gazzaniga it has been shown that the left hemisphere processes information analytically and consistently, and the right one - simultaneously and holistically. While de-veloping these views, N. Herrmann offers four models of thinking styles: analytical, sequen-tial or procedural, interpersonal or interactive, imaginary or holistic (Bawaneh et al, 2011;
Herrmann, 1995).
If one tries to reduce the diversity of ap-proaches, concepts and theories concerning the stylistic originality of thinking to some common grounds, then, in our opinion, one can identify three main directions.
The first direction - cognitive - centers
around the issue of preferences for the certain representational system or the characteristics of the world image, representing the specifics of thinking style. In this case, the thinking is viewed through the originality of the
psycho-logical mechanisms involved in the processes of the concept formation, information reflec-tion (Berulava, 2001), or involved in the so-lution of cognitive tasks (Harrison, A. F. and Bramson, R. M., 1984; Cholodnaya, 2004).
The second direction - functional – is
associated with the theories and concepts that directly or indirectly lead to the originality of representation of the various functions in thinking that develop the thinking style ( Stern-berg, R. J., 2002). The profile of the combi-nation of various self-management functions (Sternberg, R. J., 2002), in which the thinking of person is carried out, defines the various thinking styles. This understanding of the na-ture of the thinking style shows that there are differences in the solution of cognitive tasks and these differences relate to what dominates in the processes of formulating and solving the problems - sensory-perceptual processes (of any modality or any representative sys-tem), thinking or emotions.
The third direction - psychophysiologi-cal - explores the psychophysiologipsychophysiologi-cal basis
of person’s thinking originality. It seems to us that this direction acts as a key one, because, there is certainly a physiological condition-ing of person’s thinkcondition-ing originality. Person’s thinking differs in its psychophysiological ba-sis. And this is manifested in the specificity of the originality of person’s thinking activity (Bawaneh et al, 2011; Herrmann, 1995).
Thus, if one tries to bring a variety of described concepts to a common denominator, one can say that they emphasize the dynamic characteristics of person’s thinking activity. In other words, the characteristics of initiation and subsequent evolution of thinking in terms of entry of new knowledge into the psycho-logical system, consciousness and life-world of person, in fact, determine the stylistic char-acteristics of person’s thinking.
Our studies have shown (Belousova, 2014; Belousova, Pishchik, 2011) that in the collaborative thinking activity as a combined psychological system one observes the func-tional distribution in which each person as-sumes a certain function. We identified a list of functions, which mediate the thinking ac-tivity in the group while solving intellectual problems: that is functions of generation, se-lection, sense transfer and implementation. In this case, as our studies showed, in indi-vidual thinking activity one observes the same functions carried out by the particular person. Thus, with some degree of certainty, we be-lieve that functions providing the collabora-tive thinking activity, constitute the content
of individual thinking. This confirms the con-cepts of L. S. Vygotsky, P. Janet, J. Piaget that behind every higher mental function there are functional relationships of people.
Thus, we believe that thinking of adult, being a self-organizing psychological system, combines the following functions: generation, selection, sense transfer and implementation. This set characterizes the ingrained, sustain-able functions of a person, which are based on the attitude to the new information. Thinking style is a profile of correlation of the functions of generation, selection, sense transfer, imple-mentation in the process of development of new formations in solving intellectual prob-lems. We can say that thinking style is defined as a characteristic set of functions actualized by a person in different situations of problem solving.
The correlation of the functions in the thinking of a particular person determines the direction of development of individual think-ing by definthink-ing its stylistic originality. Think-ing style can be defined as a sustainable com-bination of person’s functions in relation to the new information associated with the char-acteristics of perception, production, system-atization and implementation of information. Specificity of the thinking style is determined by the dominance among others of one of the functions in the structure of the individual profile of functions: with the dominance of the generation function - initiative thinking style is developing, with the dominance of the se-lection function - critical style, with the domi-nance of the sense transfer function - admin-istrative thinking style, with the dominance of the implementation function - practical think-ing style.
On the basis of a general understanding of functions through which thinking is real-ized, we have tried to build a model for each of the thinking styles.
Thinking style, which is determined by the main features of the generation function, was called initiative. The dominant feature is the function of generation of ideas. Gen-eration function is based on the detection and resolution of cognitive conflicts, formation of new hypotheses, assumptions, decision op-tions, objectives, plans that lead to a goal for-mation, motive forfor-mation, problem solving. Initiative thinking style is characterized by the directed search for contradictions, detection of problems and is manifested in the ability to put forward different assumptions, hypoth-eses. The most characteristic of this style is an attempt to initiate thinking, desire to “get to
the bottom of everything”, to understand the problem, when it discovered and realized be-forehand.
Critical thinking style. The dominant feature is the selection function. In this case,
the evaluation activity comes to the forefront by anticipating the productive, generating ef-fects. The tendency to evaluate plans, hypoth-eses, objectives, knowledge, in general - the personality and activity of the other man (or others) is characteristic. Provided that the evaluation, criticism in the thinking activity prevail over the formulation of hypotheses, objectives, assumptions, new information, it can lead to low results, some sort of intellec-tual infertility.
Administrative thinking style is deter-mined by the predominance of the sense trans-fer function. Sense transtrans-fer is required to bring people around a particular matter, it is firstly, and secondly to select the general hypothesis, objective, i.e. any general objective basis of activity around which it develops. For a per-son in whose thinking activity dominates this function, the coordination of the individual contribution and activity of the participants which essentially is reducible to managing the process is characteristic. It is in connec-tion with the predominant implementaconnec-tion of activity in these directions the style has been identified as administrative.
Practical thinking style is associated with the predominance of the implementa-tion funcimplementa-tion. This thinking style involves real changes in practice, during which naturally arise and develop new assumptions, hypoth-eses, however, their generation is connected with the practical realization of some ideas. In this case, we can say that the idea takes shape in action. It seems that a practical thinking style - a mental activity that has become domi-nant. For people with a prominent function of the implementation, it is important to try to
solve the problem in practice, empirically.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The variety of concepts of styles re-flects less on the development of reliable means of measuring and evaluating the style.
Most foreign authors design thinking style by using a combination of different tech-niques: the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin et al, 1971); the Develop-ing Cognitive Abilities Test (DCAT) (Beggs and Mouw, 1989); Critical Thinking Abilities (Torres and Cano, 1995); the
Rational-Expe-riential Inventory (Norris and Epstein, 2011), and others. The presented techniques require adaptation process on the Russian sample in order to be available for national researchers.
Among the techniques in the Russian language that we know – technique by A. F. Harrison, R. M. Bramson, adapted by A.A. Alekseev (Alekseev and Gromova, 1993); techniques by M. A. Cholodnaya (Kholodnaya, 2004) and others. Each technique can reflect a small layer of issues related to the manifesta-tions of person’s thinking styles. In this regard, for the development of psychological knowl-edge it is of interest to develop new diagnostic tools for defining the thinking style of person.
For this purpose, the technique has been designed, aimed at thinking style diagnos-tics, which could confirm our theoretical con-structs.
In the science of psychology is assumed that the technique is valid only if it has under-gone the procedures of psychometric testing and meets the requirements: reliability, valid-ity, accuracy and representativeness (Mitina, 2011; Pishchik, 2013).
In order to validate the technique of thinking styles by A. K. Belousova, we held its psychometric testing. To prove the belong-ing of presented propositions (total n=32) in the technique to the constructs of thinking styles (initiative – from now on – i, critical - c, administrative - a, practical - p) we conducted a survey on a representative sample.
The sample of subjects was presented by students from various universities of Rostov-on-Don (N=300). 145 - girls and 155 - boys, aged 18 to 25 (M=21).
When processing we used factor analy-sis to assess the content features of thinking styles. The results were processed using the application package SPSS - 20.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following results were obtained. To analyze the structure of the connec-tion of values of the studied technique we measured its factor validity, that is determined the factor structure and factor loadings results. By subjecting the data to factorization, we found 13 significant factors.Figure 1. The dependence of the eigenvalue
from the number of factors
Figure 1. shows that there are thirteen significant factors. Load factors after rotation are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Factor loadings of technique entries
A content analysis of the factors showed. Factor 1 initiative correlates with the follow-ing variables: questions 12a, 17a, 2c, 31c, 7i and, 4i. The maximum load is of the initiative style questions.
Factor 2 initiative-practical-critical cor-relates with the following variables: questions 1i, 16c, 24p, 32i. The maximum load is of the practical style questions.
Factor 3 practical-critical correlates with the following variables: questions 9p, 6p, 30i, 11c.
Factor 4 practical-critical correlates with the following variables: questions 20c, 26p, 15i.
Factor 5 critical-practical correlates with the following variables: questions 22p, 25c, 5c.
Factor 6 administrative correlates with the following variables: questions 3, 6, sex.
Factor 7 administrative-practical cor-relates with the following variables: questions 28a, 29p, 10i.
Factor 8 practical-initiative correlates with the following variables: 27p questions - 19And, 13k.
Factor 9 administrative-critical corre-lates with the following variables: questions 11c, 8a, 17a.
Factor 10 administrative correlates with the following variables: questions 21a, 15i, 25c, 10i.
Factor 11 practical correlates with the following variables: questions 18p, 11, 19, 25.
Factor 12 administrative - correlates with the following variables: questions 23a, 14a, 30.
Factor 13 initiative correlates with the following variables: questions 4i, 2, 5.
We managed to get factors for the indi-vidual styles: administrative, practical, initia-tive. With a clear predominance of practical style. So far, only critical style is presented as connected one. It correlates with the questions of administrative and practical styles.
To evaluate the effectiveness, differen-tiating value the technique has been tested to comply with psychometric standards.
In order to verify the reliability-stability of the technique we conducted the retest of the thinking styles on the same sample (cadets N=60), two weeks after the presentation in 2013 and in 2014. Table 2 shows the results of correlation of the points of the first and second presentation for each item of the technique.
Table 2. Significant values of correlations
be-tween the scores of the first and second presentation
The major confirmation of the stability showed the entries of the test (1i, 2c, 12a, 18p,
23a, 26p, 27p, 29p, 31c), other entries of the technique showed moderate stability.
Reliability-consistency of technique scales was measured using Cronbach’s for-mula. The highest was Cronbach coefficient on the practical style questions (0.80), which can confirm the high compatibility between the test questions. The questions on admin-istrative style (0.74), critical style (0.76) and initiative style (0.79) combine well with each other. These results indicate a high connectiv-ity within each of the technique scales.
The correlation results between the dif-ferent test entries were received and distrib-uted according to the thinking styles in table 3. The findings suggest a high correla-tion ratio between the scores on the technique scales entries, which indicates satisfactory consistency.
Before proceeding to the assessment of constructive and content validity, it was nec-essary to assess whether the distribution of the study results on the Russian sample cor-respond to Gaussian bell curve.
Evaluation of the distribution type was carried out on the experimental group n=200, 106 boys and 94 girls, with a statistical test of normality c2. Empirical data on 4 technique
scales have a distribution that is close to the normal. Taking into account the data on the distribution type, it was decided on the ad-missibility of parametric techniques of math-ematical statistics for data processing and the possibility of constructing the standard norms.
Table 3. Correlation values between technique
entries
The content validity of the technique understood as the validity of the study pro-cedures regarding the subject of the study was determined by virtue of the evaluation of consensus of psychological experts’ opinions
(n=8), evaluating the compliance of technique questions with their content loads. The reli-ability of expert evaluation was estimated on the basis of the concordance coefficient.
The results of the test entries evaluation by experts are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Values of technique scales consistency
The high value of the concordance coef-ficient was obtained on all scales. This may indicate a high consistency of expert opinion on the content of scales entries. Based on the comments on the critical and practical styles questions, we have replaced the full wording of critical style questions and questions 22, 26 in a practical style.
Empirical validity was measured using
a statistical correlation of test scores and ex-ternal parameters. Indicators of administrative thinking style were combined with an indica-tor of the success of managers as an external parameter. Indicators of practical thinking style were combined with the success of sales-people. The biserial correlation coefficient was calculated. Analysis of the results showed that there is no significant correlation between thinking style and external parameters. This may indicate that the external criterion, such as the success of the activity involves a combi-nation of different thinking styles. And this, in turn, indirectly confirms the assumption that there are no pure thinking styles.
Using the technique, it is important to compare the results with the mean values for each scale. Below are the results of calculation of mean values according to the scales on a representative sample table 5.
Table 5. The mean values and measures of
val-ues dispersion of thinking styles in a group of young people
Discriminant validity has been widely presented in various samples of our work ( Be-lousova, Pishchik, 2011).
Thus, the technique has acquired the fol-lowing functional form (Appendix).
4. CONCLUSIONS
1. Thinking style - a construct, which is still the subject to continuous loading of content. Thinking style can be considered as a trend, as a direction, as a functional defini-tion. In concept by A. K. Belousova thinking style is understood as a unique combination of functions: generation, selection, sense trans-fer, implementation, where the dominance of one of the functions determines the develop-ment of the respective thinking style.
2. Technique that measures four think-ing styles was presented. High scores on the initiative thinking style suggest that a person in the course of thinking activity plays a role of an initiator of action. The predominance of critical thinking style suggests that a per-son in the thinking activity is a critic of ideas, assumptions, actions. The predominance of administrative thinking style assumes that a person acts as a coordinator of actions dur-ing problem solvdur-ing. The predominant prac-tical thinking style motivates a person to a greater extent to the practical implementation of ideas. As a rule, we can talk about the de-velopment of the thinking style profile, which involves finding the ratio of thinking styles of a particular person.
3. Applying the methods of psychomet-ric analysis we confirmed the validity and reliability of a new technique that measures thinking styles on a representative sample of Russian respondents.
4. The next step might be the adapta-tion of the technique on a sample of foreign respondents.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank our colleges for valuable feedback and making sure we was true to our research.Thanks are also due to Dr. Galina Molo-hina and Dr. Tatiana Sinchenko, who were co- investigators in this study.
We would like to thank to the research participants – all students: thank you for your participation, for without it, this research would not have been possible.
Conflict of interests
REFERENCES
Alekseev, A. A., & Gromova, L. A. (1993). Under-stand me correctly or the book how to find the style of thinking, to use effectively intellectual resources and to find mutual understanding with people (p. 352). St. - Petersburg, Eco-nomic school. (Алексеев А.А., Громова Л.А. (1993). Поймите меня правильно. СПб.: Экономическая школа.)
Bawaneh, A. K. A., Abdullah, A. G. K., Saleh, S., & Yin, K. Y. (2011). Jordanian students’ thinking styles based on Herrmann whole brain model. Interna-tional Journal of Humanities and social science, 1(9), 89-97. Retrieved 20.08.2013. http://www. ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._9_Special_ Issue_July_2011/12.pdf
Beggs, D. L., & Mouw, J. T. (1989). Assessing dimen-sions of ability. American Testronics, Devel-oping Cognitive Ability Test: Comprehensive assessment program. Chicago: American Tes-tronics.
Belousova, A. (2014). Thinking Style as a Factor of Variable Cognitive Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 97-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.167.
Belousova, A. K. & Pishchik, V. I. (2011). Thinking style. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the SFU, 167.
Berulava, G. A. (2001). Style of individuality: Theory and Practice. M., (Берулава Г.А. (2001). Стиль индивидуальности: теория и практика. М.: Педагогическое общество России).
Harrison, A. F., & Bramson, R. M. (1984). The art of thinking. Random House (USA), New York: Doubleday.
Herrmann, N. (1995). The creative brain (2nd ed). Kingsport: Quebecor Printing Book Group. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2004). Cognitive styles. On the
na-ture of the individual mind, 2nd edn., Piter, Saint Petersburg.
Mitina, O. V. (2011). Development and adaptation of psychological questionnaires. M.: Smysl. (Митина, О.В. (2011) Разработка и адаптация психологических опросников. М.: Смысл.) Norris, P., & Epstein, S. (2011). An experiential thinking
style: Its facets and relations with objective and subjective criterion measures. Journal of per-sonality, 79(5), 1043-1080. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00718.x
Pishchik, V.I. (2013) Psychometric testing methods for measuring type mentality generations, European researcher, 54(7-1), 1852-1866.
Sternberg, R.J. (2002). Thinking Styles. Reprinted Edi-tion, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Torres, R. M., & Cano, J. (1995). Critical thinking as influenced by learning style. Journal of Agricul-tural Education, 36, 55-63.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Manual for embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, and group em-bedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Related constructs and measures from beyond the field of ethics, 365.
APPENDIX
THINKING STYLES TECHNIQUE
(Belousova, A. K.)
Instructions:
“You are offered a series of statements. If the statement corresponds with your per-sonal opinion, then answer “yes”, if it is more likely to correspond, then answer is “probably yes”, if it does not correspond - then answer “no”, if it is more likely not to correspond, then - “ probably no”.
1. Every new topic for me is associated with a large number of emerging ideas.
2. “Weak” spots of the problem at hand immediately strike my eye.
3. I like to discuss problems with others. 4. I am a very good critic of my own ideas.
5. I leave out weaknesses of idea if I like it.
6. I easily reject old ideas for the practi-cal implementation of new ideas.
7. In my group, I often suggest new ideas.
8. I often have to explain to others the meaning of ideas that were ambiguously pre-sented by other people.
9. I do not always support new ideas due to the fact that I feel the need to continue working on old problems.
10. I can hardly formulate my emerging ideas.
11. I often get convinced that new ideas for problem solving are by no means new.
12. In group I sometimes take the re-sponsibility to make the final decision.
13. I avoid criticizing other people’s ideas.
14. I prefer to avoid discussions.
15. I always try to understand the prob-lem and work out a strategy for its solution.
16. I find it interesting to divide a prob-lem on specific tasks.
17. I find it interesting to listen to the opinions of others about various problems.
18. I believe that before rejecting the idea one should try to test it in practice.
19. I believe that the idea is good only if the possibility of its practical use is clear from the outset.
20. I find it difficult to evaluate the pro-posed ideas.
answers to the questions in the literature, and do not ask other people’s opinions on this is-sue.
22. A detailed and thorough execution of work makes me bored.
23. I like organizing the discussion of the problems.
24. I prefer bringing the implementation of ideas to a conclusion, even if others criti-cize them.
25. The development of proposed ideas prevails over their evaluations while working out of the problems.
26. The practical implementation of ideas is boring for me.
27. I am primarily interested in the pro-ductive side of solution.
28. I am interested in the opinions of others about possible solutions.
29. I find it difficult to put into action the plans developed for problem solving.
30. My suggestions are usually obvious and understandable to others.
31. As a rule, the analysis of the prob-lems does not appeal to me.
32. I like to influence people, to guide them in the process of problem solving.
The Answers:
1. Process the answers under the follow-ing numbers accordfollow-ing to the scheme:
Yes=4, probably yes=3, probably no =2, no=1
Initiative thinking style - 1, 7, 10, 15, 32 Critical thinking style - 2, 11, 16
Administrative thinking style - 3, 8, 12, 17, 23
Practical thinking style - 9, 18, 24, 27 2. Process the answers under the follow-ing numbers accordfollow-ing to the scheme:
Yes=1, probably yes=2, probably no=3, no=4
Initiative thinking style - 4, 19, 30 Critical thinking style - 5, 13, 20, 25, 31 Administrative thinking style - 14, 21, 28
Practical thinking style - 6, 22, 26, 29
3. Sum the obtained scores for
each thinking style
Abstract. Team teaching factors, including
mis-sion clarity, affiliation, innovativeness, and fairness, are examined to determine how they influence student learn-ing in a team-taught course. The study involved 184 college students enrolled in an Introduction to Comput-ers course delivered in a team-taught format in a large university located in the United States. The collaborative teaching design followed a traditional team teaching approach with an instructor team teaching the same course collaboratively. Students enrolled in the team-taught course filled out an online survey targeted at identify-ing key factors that influence student-based outcomes (satisfaction and competency) in the course. Results showed that instructor team mission clarity, affiliation, and fairness are significantly related to students’ satisfac-tion while instructor team mission clarity and fairness are significantly related to students’ competency.
Keywords: team teaching, mission clarity, affili-ation, fairness, competency, satisfaction.
1. INTRODUCTION
Team teaching is an instructional ap-proach where two or more teachers cooper-ate and share the responsibilities for planning, teaching, and evaluating a group of students (Buckley, 2000; Tornyay, 1971). A number of advantages and disadvantages of team teach-ing settteach-ings have been identified based on studies that have focused on perspectives of the faculty or students. Several studies focus-ing on faculty perspectives have indicated that students benefit from the diversity of perspec-tives and expertise and that the setting can provide an opportunity for innovation and growth (Crossman and Behrens, 1992;
Tis-dell and Eisen, 2000; Wöllner and Ginsborg, 2011). Weaknesses identified with team teach-ing include the lack of continuity in content, poor communication between team teachers, reduced rapport with students, and the differ-ence in teaching styles (Crossman and Beh-rens, 1992) as well as the lack of commitment to the principle of team teaching (Wöllner and Ginsborg, 2011). From the students’ perspec-tive, a variety of perspectives (Little and Hoel, 2011; Neumann, et al., 2007) and confidence building and encouragement have been identi-fied as key advantages of team teaching while lack, of course, coordination, lack of continu-ity in content, and faculty transitions ( Neu-mann, et al., 2007) and the need for teachers to agree on the purpose of team teaching ( Wöll-ner and Ginsborg, 2011) have been identified as disadvantages or areas for improvement.
Most education research on team teach-ing has focused on the teacher perceptions of the process (e.g., Wöllner and Ginsborg, 2011; Strohl, et. al., 2014) or teacher behavior (e.g., Sagliano, Sagliano, and Stewart, 1998). Recently, researchers have begun to exam-ine how collaboration impacts students in a team-taught setting from a student perspective (Wöllner and Ginsborg, 2011; Neumann, et al., 2007). This research seeks to expand the field’s understanding of the student perspec-tive on team teaching, specifically exploring the influence of teacher team dynamics on the student outcomes of satisfaction and compe-tency. The rest of this paper presents the mea-surement development, data analysis and re-sults, and discussion of the findings.
Based on a systematic review of existing education and management literature and in-tensive interviews with 10 team-taught course students, we identify key factors related to the instructor-team that have significant impacts on student-based outcomes. We assess the
in-INVESTIGATING FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’
LEARNING IN A TEAM TEACHING SETTING
Dr. Brenda L Killingsworth, East Carolina University, North Carolina, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Yajiong Xue, East Carolina University, North Carolina, USA E-mail: [email protected] Received: November, 20.2015. Revised: December, 02.2015. Accepted: December, 05.2015. Original Article UDK 371.311.4:159.9.075(73) Corresponding Author Dr. Brenda L Killingsworth
East Carolina University, North Carolina, USA E-mail: [email protected]
structor team from four aspects: (1) mission clarity, (2) affiliation, (3) innovativeness, and (4) fairness. We measure two student-based outcomes: (1) satisfaction and (2) competency.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The measures of the six constructs were developed based on prior research from social and cognitive studies. According to sociolo-gists, social engagement is principally influ-enced by institutional structures (Coleman, 1988). When considering factors which influ-ence knowledge sharing within teams, Bock et al. (2005) identifies three organizational climate factors, fairness, innovativeness, and affiliation. Xue, Sankar, and Mbarika (2005)identify a fourth climate factor for evaluating the dynamics of teams, mission clarity. The current study seeks to examine how these four factors, as measures of the learning climate in a team teaching setting, influence student out-comes. Specifically, we adopt measures used in team dynamics in knowledge worker set-tings for use in a team teaching setting to see how these factors influence student perceived satisfaction and competency. The four learning climate dimensions focus on student percep-tions of the team teaching setting, including mission clarity, fairness, innovativeness, and affiliation. Two measures are used to measure student outcomes, specifically satisfaction and competency. All of the constructs include re-flective items. The items were evaluated by a five-point Likert scale where 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree.” Appendix A shows the measurement items. Below we develop the posited relation-ships, considering first the two student out-come measures.
Two measures that provide a sense of students’ state of mind regarding their expe-riences within the classroom are satisfaction and competency. In previous research, satis-faction is a measure that is often used to pro-vide an overall perspective on the learning ex-perience (Hativa, 1998; Ribera, et al., 2012). In addition to gaining insight into a student’s overall satisfaction of a course, understand-ing what impacts a student’s perception, of course, mastery is important (Ginsberg, 2007;
Pascarella, 2006). Why is perceived compe-tency important? Studies in social cognitive theory suggest that individuals with high lev-els of perceived self-efficacy or competency will perform at higher levels while those with low levels of perceived competency will tend
to quit prematurely and fail to complete the tasks (Bandura 1977, 1997). These two out-come measures are described in more detail below.
Satisfaction refers to a positive affec-tive state ensuing from the assessment of the structures, processes, and outcomes associ-ated with a student’s class experience. This concept is similar to job satisfaction which is defined as the “positive emotional state re-sulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences,” (Organ, 1990) as well as athlete satisfaction which is defined as “a positive af-fective state produced by a judgment of the structures, processes, and outcomes associat-ed with the athletic experience” (Chelladurai and Riemer, 1997). The four items for satis-faction were adapted from Osmonbekov and Bernard (2013). A sample item was “Overall, I am personally satisfied with this course.”
Competency refers to the perception of one’s ability to perform the required tasks ef-fectively. This concept is closely related to the perception of personal mastery or self-effica-cy, where an individual is confident in their ability to perform expected tasks effectively (Wang and Netemeyer, 2002). The definition is consistent with the psychological empow-erment construct’s competence facet (Aryee and Chen, 2006). The scale for competency included four items and was adapted from Os-monbekov and Bernard (2013). A sample item was “I am able to do what it takes to get a bet-ter grade for this course.”
Mission clarity refers to the perception that the goals and mission of the team have been clearly defined and understood. The clar-ity of mission has been shown to be an im-portant factor in the success of teams develop-ing as fundamental learndevelop-ing units (Som, et al. 2012; Laise, 2004) and in project teams ( Ofo-ri, 2013). Wöllner and Ginsborg (2011) noted that a key area for team teacher improvement from the perspective of students was that teachers within a team should agree on the purpose of team teaching, specifically have a clearer understanding of what team teaching is. A related but distinctly different concept, teaching clarity, refers to the perceived level of transparency in instruction and objectives (Hativa, Barak, and Simhi, 2001; Ribera et al., 2012). Teaching clarity has been shown to have a positive relationship with student satis-faction (Hativa, 1998) and student comprehen-sion of material (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001). In team teaching, clarity of purpose or mission of the team teaching responsibilities and goals is important. Mission clarity, which
