College students' role models, learning style preferences, and academic achievement in collaborative teaching: absolute versus relativistic thinking.

Chiou, Wen-Bin

In Taiwan, higher hospitality education is managed by the system of technological and vocational education. In order to maximize the professional skills learned by students, collaborative teaching has been widely adopted in the technical courses which are taught by both the professionals (technical teachers) and the academic instructors (lecturing teachers) simultaneously. The technical teachers are responsible for demonstrating practical skills, whereas the lecturing teachers are responsible for illustrating the principles and theories underlying those skills. A pioneer concept, i.e., modeling advantage, which depicts the likelihood of a teacher model being imitated by students over other competing models in a particular class, was developed by Chiou and Yang (2006) to differentiate the rival modeling of two kinds of teachers under the condition of collaborative teaching. Chiou and Yang found that students perceived a greater modeling advantage of the technical teachers compared with that of the lecturing teachers, and the preferred learning styles of the students were congruent with those teachers as their role models. However, some of the participants did not indicate a significant difference of teachers' modeling advantage as well as learning style preferences. Hence, this study will further consider the development factor that might moderate unitary or multiple identifications of college students in social learning and their differential engagement in academic learning and achievement.

In an effort to more adequately conceptualize the nature of cognitive development following childhood and adolescence, a number of theorists (e.g., Arlin, 1984; Basseches, 1984; Kramer, 1989; Labouvie-Vief, 1982; Sinnott, 1989) have posited stages of thought beyond Piaget's (1980) final cognitive developmental stage (formal operations). In general, these theories propose a reorganized progression from formalistic or absolute to more subjectively determined modes of thinking (Kramer, 1983; Kramer, Kahlbaugh, & Goldston, 1992) in which the relativistic and/or dialectical thinking more thoroughly depicts adolescents' and adults' adaptation to important real-life issues. These post-Piagetian perspectives suggest that the episetmic level of late adolescence (i.e., college students) is developing from formal operations toward the postformal cognitive ability of relativism (Kramer & Woodruff, 1986; Perry, 1970).

Considering the developmental stages in late adolescence, formalistic or relativistic are two possible modes of thinking during that period (Kahlbaugh & Kramer, 1995; Kramer et al., 1992). Absolute or formalistic thinking leads one to think in terms of absolute principles and ideas. This view holds that the world is stable and fixed. Contradiction is seen as incorrect or undesirable, resulting in such absolute, dualistic conceptions as right vs. wrong, truth vs. falsehood, weak vs. strong. These beliefs are supposed to develop during early adolescence, and find parallels elsewhere in the constructs of dualistic thinking (Benack, 1984; King, Kitchener, Davison, Parker, & Wood, 1983), intrasystematic thinking (Labouvie-Vief, 1982), late formal thinking (Pascual-Leone, 1983), and universal formal thinking (Basseches, 1984).

Relativistic thinking, defined on the basis of Pepper's (1942) contextualist worldview (Kramer, 1983), rests on the concepts of change, subjectivity, and novelty. As one's standpoint or context changes, so too does one's knowledge. Consequently all knowledge is seen as subjective and constantly changing due to fluctuating contexts, while contradiction is accepted as inherent and irreconcilable. The concept of relativism is similar to that of Basseches (1984) and Chandler (1987), and is supposed to develop in late adolescence and early adulthood. With other researchers it finds parallels in the concepts of intersystematic thinking (Labouvie-Vief, 1982), multiplicity (Benack, 1984; King et al., 1983; Perry, 1970), and predialectical thinking (Pascual-Leone, 1983). Furthermore, relativistic thinking has been viewed as a response to the increasing complexity of roles, responsibilities, and choices emerging among adolescents/young adults of college age (Kahlbaugh & Kramer, 1995). From this perspective, truth is subjective and changing. Therefore, single and fixed commitment is less likely because no option is seen as inherently better than another (Kahlbaugh, 1989). Thus, relativistic thinking may provide a unique vehicle for exploring multiple values and commitments.

In the context of collaborative teaching, those college students who think relativistically may reject absolute and dualistic criteria which tends to result in choosing either of the two kinds of teachers as role models. For relativists, multiple role models are likely to be chosen. Following this rationale, they may also employ different learning styles based on pragmatism in diverse contexts. Regarding academic achievement of college students, flexible and multiple commitments would contribute to their balanced involvement with diverse courses.

On the other hand, those students with absolute or formalistic thinking are likely to choose either technical or lecturing teachers as their role models. Furthermore, the dualistic nature of absolute thinking would induce them to classify courses (e.g., as important or not important, interesting or not interesting, useful or not useful. Thus these students would be more likely to vary in achievement in different kinds of courses. Research has demonstrated that academic achievement is affected by preferred learning styles (e.g., Cassidy & Eachus, 2000; Collinson, 2000; Snyder, 2000). From this perspective (Hayes & Allinson, 1996), it was proposed that students' preferred learning styles would interact with course category (i.e., technical courses vs. general courses) and affect academic achievement. Specifically, the students who preferred the experience-driven mode would perform better in technical courses than in general courses, whereas those who preferred the theory-driven mode would perform better in general courses.

The present study aimed to investigate: (1) how cognitive development of college students moderate their perceived modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers in collaborative teaching; (2) how cognitive development affects their relative preferences for different learning styles; (3) whether cognitive development affects academic achievement in technical courses and general courses; and (4) whether academic achievement of college students would be determined by the interaction of their preferred learning styles and course category.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 244 college students (132 females, 112 males; ages 19 to 24 years, M = 21.12, SD = 1.16) taking technical courses with collaborative teaching. Students were recruited in collaboration with teachers who engaged in collaborative teaching of technical courses. To increase involvement in the survey and reduce subject loss, the teachers agreed that participants would receive extra points for participation. Cognitive development of the students was assessed at the beginning of the semester. Students' perceived modeling advantages of two kinds of teachers and their learning style preferences was measured at the beginning and end of the semester. When the semester was over, the grades of participants in both technical courses and general courses were collected.

Measures

Cognitive development. The Social Paradigm Belief Inventory (SPBI) developed by Kramer et al. (1992) was applied to evaluate cognitive developmental levels of participants. The original SPI was a 27-item, forced-choice inventory wherein subjects chose one of three statements (absolute, relativistic, or dialectical) with which they most agreed. The scale showed internal consistencies ranging from .60 to .84 (M = .72, SD = .11), good test-retest reliability, a relationship to responses on an in-depth interview measure of worldview beliefs, and both convergent and discriminate validity. The present study adopted a modified version of the measure by presenting absolute (M = 14.87, SD = 1.98) and relativistic (M = 12.13, SD = 1.98) statements in each item. The dialectical statement was excluded because research has demonstrated that dialectical thinking usually appears during and after middle adulthood (e.g., Basseches, 1980; Kramer & Woodruff, 1986; Kramer et al., 1992). According to Kramer et al. (1992), the highest z-score method was applied to separate participants into the absolute thinking group or the relativistic thinking group. Specifically, when a single "stage score" is required, this method which typically produces a definitive and discriminating classification, is used to convert subjects' frequencies (for each statement) into z-scores and assigns the subjects to a level based on their highest attained scores. Applying this method, 153 participants were classified into the absolute thinking group and 91 into the relativistic thinking group.

Modeling advantage. The Modeling Advantage of Models Scale (MAMS) developed by Chiou and Yang (2006) was employed to measure participants' perceived modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers. The MAMS consisted of the modeling advantage of technical teachers subscale (MATT, eight items with a 7-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree; e.g., "To be able to perform like technical teachers is my ultimate goal in this class") and the modeling advantage of lecturing teachers subscale (MALT, eight items; e.g., "I really appreciate academic knowledge of lecturing teachers"). The MAMS showed satisfactory internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and construct validity by applying confirmatory factor analysis. Regarding the current data, the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .90 for the MATT and .87 for the MALT at pretest, whereas the internal consistency was .88 for the MATT and .85 for the MALT at posttest.

Learning style preferences. The Learning Style Preferences Scale (LSPS), developed by Chiou and Yang (2006), was adopted to assess preferred learning styles of participants. The scale consisted of the experience-driven mode subscale (EDM, seven items with a 7-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree; e.g., "I prefer learning by doing") that denotes the learning style demonstrated by the technical teachers, and the theory-driven mode subscale (TDM, seven items; e.g., "Without the guide of principles, practical practice seems to be trial-and-error work") that denotes the learning style emphasized by the lecturing teachers. The LSPS showed satisfactory internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and construct validity. The learning style preferences of participants were assessed twice. Regarding the current data, the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .89 for the EDM and .87 for the TDM at pretest, whereas the internal consistency was .88 for the EDM and .85 for the TDM at posttest.

Academic achievement. Participants' weighed (course credits as the weights) mean grades across the courses they took in the semester when the survey was conducted with respect to technical courses and general (non-technical) courses were computed as the indexes of academic achievement. These grade scores ranged from 0 to 100 according to customary practice in the Taiwanese education system.

The Moderating Role of Cognitive Development

Means and standard deviations of participants' responses on the measures are shown in Table 1. First, participants' evaluations on the modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers at both pretest and posttest were respectively submitted to the conditions of a 2 (modeling advantage technical teachers vs. lecturing teachers) x 2 (cognitive development: absolute thinking vs. relativistic thinking) mixed factorial model, which treated modeling advantage as a within-subjects factor and cognitive development as a between-subjects factor. ANOVA revealed a main effect of modeling advantage, F(1, 242) = 101.78, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .30, which indicated that participants perceived the modeling advantage of technical teachers (M = 44.76, SD = 7.02) to be greater than that of lecturing teachers in technical courses (M = 38.18, SD = 6.57) with collaborative teaching. More importantly, a two-way interaction of cognitive development and modeling advantage was found to be significant, F(1, 242) = 59.99, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .20. Follow-up contrasts showed that the absolute thinkers perceived the modeling advantage of technical teachers (M = 47.55) to be greater than that of lecturing teachers (M = 37.73), F(1, 152) = 209.46, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .58, whereas the relativistic thinkers perceived the relative modeling advantage between two kinds of teachers as not different, F(1, 90) = 2.26, p > .05. Moreover, the modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers perceived by the relativistic thinkers at pretest were both significantly higher than the midpoint ([mu] = 36.00) of the scale range (from 8 to 56) at p < .001, t(90) = 13.10 for the technical teachers (M = 40.08) and t(90) = 9.36 for the lecturing teachers (M = 38.79), respectively. The findings indicated that the relativistic thinkers would be more likely to identify two kinds of teachers rather than either of them as their role models simultaneously.

A similar pattern was also observed in the posttest data in terms of the interaction of cognitive development and modeling advantage, F(1, 242) = 39.75, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .14. The absolute thinkers perceived greater modeling advantage of technical teachers (M = 43.85) rather than that of lecturing teachers (M = 36.39), F(1, 152) = 158.51,p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .51, whereas the differential modeling advantage between two kinds of teachers was not perceived by the relativistic thinkers as not different, F(1, 90) = 2.24, p > .05. In addition, the modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers perceived by the relativistic thinkers at posttest was higher than the midpoint of the scale range at p < .001, t(90) = 11.61 for the technical teachers (M = 39.41) and t(90) = 9.62 for the lecturing teachers (M = 38.20), respectively.

With respect to learning style preferences participants' responses at both pretest and posttest were submitted to the conditions of a 2 (learning styles: the experience-driven mode vs. the theory-driven mode) x 2 (cognitive development: absolute thinking vs. relativistic thinking) mixed factorial model respectively which treated learning style preferences as a within-subjects factor and cognitive development as a between-subjects factor. Results showed that participants scored higher in the experience-driven mode (M = 37.15, SD = 6.65) than in the theory-driven mode (M = 30.60, SD = 5.14), F(1, 242) = 104.87, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .30. However, a significant two-way interaction was found, F(1, 242) = 58.04, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .19. Follow-up contrasts revealed that the participants with absolute thinking showed greater preference for the experience-driven mode (M = 39.29) than for the theory-driven mode (M = 29.69), F(1, 152) = 197.70, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .56. On the other hand, the relativistic thinkers did not show significant differences between the two learning styles, F(1, 90) = 3.18, p > .05. Furthermore, preferences for two learning styles of the relativistic thinkers significantly were higher than the midpoint ([mu] = 28.00) of the scale range (from 7 to 49) at p < .001, t(90) = 9.16 for the experience-driven mode (M = 33.54) and t(90) = 7.31 for the theory-driven mode (M = 32.13), respectively. The findings indicated that the relativistic thinkers would be more likely to adopt two learning styles simultaneously rather than adopt either of them.

For the posttest data, a significant interaction of cognitive development and learning styles was also found, F(1, 242) = 28.01, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .10. The absolute thinkers preferred the experience-driven mode (M = 35.52) over the theory-driven mode (M = 28.80), F(1, 152) = 98.02, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .39. On the other hand, the relativistic thinkers did not show a preference for a learning style, F(1, 90) = 2.21, p > .05. In addition, the preferences for the two learning styles of the relativistic thinkers were significantly greater than the midpoint of the scale range at p < .001, t(90) = 8.16 for the experience-driven mode (M = 33.20) and t(90) = 8.37 for the theory-driven mode (M = 32.07), respectively.

Regarding the moderating role of cognitive development on academic achievement, participants' weighted mean scores of academic achievement in technical (M = 80.14, SD = 5.86) and general courses (M = 77.39, SD = 6.94) were submitted to the conditions of a 2 (academic achievement: technical courses vs. general courses) x 2 (cognitive development: absolute thinking vs. relativistic thinking) mixed factorial model, which treated academic achievement as a within-subjects factor and cognitive development as a between-subjects factor. A significant two-way interaction was observed, F(1, 242) = 9.81, p < .01, [[eta].sup.2] = .04. This finding indicated that the achievement differences between technical courses and general courses were moderated by cognitive development of participants. Follow-up contrasts showed that absolute thinkers performed better in technical courses (M = 79.62) than in general courses (M = 75.88), F(1, 152) = 48.02, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .24. However, the relativistic thinkers did not perform significantly differently in two kinds of courses, F(1, 90) = 2.91, p > .05. Besides, the relativistic thinkers (M = 80.46) performed better than the absolute thinkers (M = 77.75) in overall achievement, Multivariate F(2, 241) = 10.51, [[eta].sup.2] = .08.

The Interplay of Learning Styles and Academic Achievement

Participants' responses on learning style preferences at pretest were further applied to the classification of their preferred learning styles. The participants whose scores in the EDM were higher than theirs in the TDM by at least half of the standard deviation of difference scores were placed in the "experience-driven mode" group (n = 131), whereas those who scored higher in the TDM were placed in the "theory-driven mode" group (n = 48). Those who scored significantly differently on preferences in the two learning styles were excluded from subsequent analysis.

Participants' scores (see Table 2) on two kinds of courses (M = 79.26, SD = 5.97 for technical courses and M = 76.78, SD = 6.68 for general courses, respectively) were submitted to the conditions of a 2 (academic achievement: technical courses vs. general courses) x 2 (preferred learning style: experience-driven mode vs. theory-driven mode) mixed factorial model which treated academic achievement as a within-subjects factor and preferred learning style as a between-subjects factor. ANOVA showed a significant interaction between academic achievement and preferred learning style, F(1, 177) = 87.20, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .33, which indicated that achievement differences between two kinds of courses were contingent upon participants' preferred learning styles. As to the participants who preferred the experience-driven mode, their academic achievement in technical courses (M = 78.78) were higher than their achievement in general courses (M = 74.03), F(1, 130) = 100.81, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .44. In contrast, those who preferred the theory-driven mode achieved better in general courses (M = 84.26) than in technical courses (M = 80.55), F(1, 47) = 24.07, p < .001, [[eta].sup.2] = .34.

DISCUSSION

Results showed that social learning, learning style preferences, and academic achievement of college students were moderated by their cognitive development (i.e., absolute thinking or relativistic thinking). The absolute thinkers tended to adopt single commitment in terms of particular role model (i.e., technical teachers) and learning style (i.e., the experience-driven mode), and academic achievement (i.e., technical courses) in a one-semester period, whereas the relativistic thinkers tended to adopt dual commitments regarding their identified role models, preferred learning styles, and academic achievement. These findings clearly support the view that relativistic thinking plays a moderating role in academic learning of college students under collaborative teaching, and echo those of Kramer and Kahlbaugh (1995), which indicate that relativistic thinking is involved in the individual's exploration of pluralistic roles and beliefs and is a predictor of the moratorium status. On the other hand, college students with absolute thinking face two kinds of role models, demonstrating two modes of learning styles in the collaborative teaching context. Compared with students with relativistic thinking, their inability to integrate multiple domains of experience seems to be derived from a dualistic (Perry, 1970) or an absolutist (Kramer, 1983) style of thinking in which they view people or situations with a sense of idealism and absolutism (Kramer, 1989). Therefore, the results show that most of them identified the technical teachers as role models and the experience-driven mode as the preferred learning style.

For the college students, experiencing identity crisis may lead them to adopt relativistic thinking about the social world--a pluralistic position in which different choices of behavior and attitudes are possible. Attitudes and behavior are adopted pragmatically by considering how well they will work in a given situation. Hence, the findings that relativistic thinking of college students moderate their identification of role models and preferences for learning styles supports this notion that cognitive development of college students is related to their social lemming in which multiple role models and their demonstrated learning styles are supposed to be experienced by them. The causal flow of relativism and social learning in collaborative teaching is a topic for longitudinal research in order to explicate the social learning factors that may underlie the development of postformal thought in late adolescence. Furthermore, Chandler (1987) has argued that the relativist may at times suffer from extreme skepticism. The resolution of juxtaposed role models and demonstrated learning styles in collaborative teaching require clear-cut dialectical thinking. The adoption of dialectical thinking makes commitments within contradictory situations possible, thereby allowing integration in a complex environment (Basseches, 1980, 1989; Kramer, 1983). Thus, dialectical thinking may be related to integration of pluralistic choices of college students in a collaborative teaching context. A longitudinal study is required, however, before the relationships among relativism, dialecticism, and different levels of integration in the social learning process can be fully understood. Further, measurement of cognitive development adopted in the present study was a self-reported process with a forced-choice format. Future research might assess cognitive development of college students by adopting a syllogism dilemma (e.g., Blanchard-Field, 1986; Sebby & Papini, 1991, 1994) and structured interviews (e.g., Basseches, 1989; Kramer & Woodruff, 1986), and then investigate whether the method used to assess worldview assumptions is critical.

In addition, this research indicates that college students' preferred learning styles interact with course category (i.e., technical courses vs. general courses) to affect academic achievement. The students who preferred the experience-driven mode performed better in technical courses than in general courses, whereas those who preferred the theory-driven mode did better in general courses. The findings are in accordance with the view that learning styles influence the academic achievement of college students and that certain styles may be more effective for particular courses than others (Matthews, 1991). In addition, they also echo those of previous studies demonstrating that learning styles of students are closely related to their academic achievement (e.g., Cassidy & Eachus, 2000; Collinson, 2000; Snyder, 2000). Moreover, the results regarding the interplay of learning style preferences and course category on achievements suggest that the preferred learning style of students in collaborative teaching seem to spill over to the learning process in other courses. Students with relativistic thinking were more likely to exhibit equivalent preferences for different learning styles and to achieve as well in technical courses and general courses as compared with absolute thinkers. Based on these findings, it further suggests that our understanding of learning style preference and academic achievement in college students is enhanced by consideration of postformal types of reasoning, specifically, relativistic thinking. Future research might investigate how the relativistic thinkers flexibly adopt pluralistic learning styles for different kinds of courses based on the matching hypothesis (Hayes & Allinson, 1996) and the metocognition approach (Sigler & Tallent-Runnels, 2006).

A number of limitations of the present study should be addressed. The results demonstrated differences in role identification, learning style preferences, and academic performance between absolute thinkers and relativistic thinkers, yet the study was of a one-semester period. A longitudinal study is needed to rule out alternative explanations. Moreover, the current results pertain only to students taking technical courses with collaborative teaching; thus, generalization is limited. In addition, only one aspect of social learning (i.e., role identification) and two aspects of academic learning (i.e., learning style preferences and academic achievement) were included. A wider examination of psychosocial domains could further the extent to which relativistic thinking moderates late adolescents' social and academic learning. Finally, the present study was conducted in a unique cultural context examining participants from technological and vocational colleges in Taiwan; thus, the generalizability of its findings to other contexts and disciplines needs to be treated with caution and explored further. In conclusion, the findings provide insight into the moderating effect of cognitive development on college students' perceived modeling advantage of competing role models and preferred learning styles in collaborative teaching as well as the difference in academic achievement between technical courses and general courses. Within the context of collaborative teaching in technical courses, two types of teachers (technical and lecturing) who teach the same students may exhibit different learning styles, personalities, and goals. Policy makers and administrators should try to enhance postformal thought in students and understand how relativistic thinking may impact the modeling effects of teachers and the academic achievement of students because the present study found that overall achievement of relativistic thinkers was better than that of absolute thinkers.

REFERENCES

Arlin, P. K. (1984). Adolescent and adult thought. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 258-271). New York: Praeger.

Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development, 23, 400-421.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adult development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Basseches, M. (1989). Dialectical thinking as an organized whole: Comments on Irwin and Kramer. In M. L. Commons, J. D. Sinnott, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations II: Comparisons and applications of adolescent and adult developmental models (pp. 133-159). New York: Praeger.

Benack, S. (1984). Postformal epistemologies and the growth of empathy. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations: Late adolescent and adult cognitive development (pp. 340-356). New York: Prager.

Blanchard-Fields, F. (1986). Reasoning on social dilemmas varying in emotional saliency: An adult developmental perspective. Psychology and Aging, 1, 325-333.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief system, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology, 20, 307-322.

Chandler, M. J. (1987). The Othello effect. Essay on the emergence and eclipse of skeptical doubt. Human Development, 30, 137-159.

Chiou, W. B., & Yang, C. C. (2006). Teachers' modeling advantage and their modeling effects on college students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes: A case of collaborative teaching in technical courses. Adolescence, 41(164), 723-738.

Collinson, E. (2000). A survey of elementary students' learning style preferences and academic success. Contemporary Education, 71, 42-46.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1996). The implications of learning styles for training and development: A discussion of the matching hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 7, 63-73.

Kahlbaugh, P. E. (1989). William James: A clarification of the contextual worldview. In D. A. Kramer & M. J. Bopp (Eds.), Transformation in clinical and developmental psychology (pp. 73-88). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kahlbaugh, P. E., & Kramer, D. A. (1995). Relativism and identity crisis in young adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 2, 63-70.

King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S., Davison, M. L., Parker, C. A., & Wood, P. K. (1983). The justification of beliefs in young adults: A longitudinal study. Human Development, 26, 106-115.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptualization. Human Development, 26, 91-105.

Kramer, D. A. (1989). A developmental framework for understanding conflict resolution processes. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving in adulthood (pp. 133-152). New York: Praeger.

Kramer, D. A., & Woodruff, D. S. (1986). Relativistic and dialectical thought in three adult age groups. Human Development, 29, 280-290.

Kramer, D. A., Kahlbaugh, P. E., & Goldston, R. B. (1992). A measure of paradigm beliefs about the social world. Journal of Gerontology, 47, 180-189.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1982).Dynamic development and mature autonomy. A theoretical prologue. Human Development, 25, 161-196.

Matthews, D. B. (1991). The effects of learning styles on grades of first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 32, 253-267.

Pascual-Leone, J. (1983). Growing into human maturity: Toward a metasubjective theory of adult stages. In P. B. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 117-156). New York: Academic Press.

Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Piaget, J. (1980). Experiments in contradiction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sebby, R. A., & Papini, D. R. (1991). Perceived problem relevancy and its relationship to reasoning on everyday problems. In J. D. Sinnott & J. C. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive aging (pp. 153-167). New York: Praeger.

Sebby, R. A., & Papini, D. R. (1994). Postformal reasoning during adolescence and young adulthood: The influence of problem relevancy. Adolescence, 29, 389-400.

Sigler, E. A., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Examining the validity of scores from an instrument designed to measure metacognition of problem solving. The Journal of General Psychology, 133, 257-274.

Sinnott, J. D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 72-99). New York: Praeger.

Snyder, R. F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 83, 11-20.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Contract No. NSC 94-2516-S-328-002).

Requests for reprints should be sent to Wen-Bin Chiou, Center for Teacher Education Program, National Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 70, Lien-Hai Rd., Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan, R.O.C. E-mail: wbchiou@mail.nsysu.edu.tw Table 1 Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Measures in this Study Cognitive Development Group Absolute thinking Measures (n = 153) Modeling Advantage Technical teachers at pretest 47.55 (6.12) Lecturing teachers at pretest 37.73 (6.35) Technical teachers at posttest 43.85 (6.46) Lecturing teachers at posttest 36.39 (5.44) Learning Style Preferences Experience-driven at pretest 39.29 (6.21) Theory-driven at pretest 29.69 (4.77) Experience-driven at posttest 35.52 (6.60) Theory-driven at posttest 28.80 (4.49) Academic Achievement Technical courses 79.62 (5.79) General courses 75.88 (6.88) Cognitive Development Group Relativistic thinking Measures (n = 91) Modeling Advantage Technical teachers at pretest 40.08 (5.88) Lecturing teachers at pretest 38.79 (6.92) Technical teachers at posttest 39.41 (6.09) Lecturing teachers at posttest 38.20 (6.15) Learning Style Preferences Experience-driven at pretest 33.54 (5.77) Theory-driven at pretest 32.13 (5.39) Experience-driven at posttest 33.20 (6.07) Theory-driven at posttest 32.07 (4.64) Academic Achievement Technical courses 80.99 (5.92) General courses 79.92 (6.31) Note. Participants' scores of modeling advantage in each kind of teachers ranged from 8 to 56, the scores of preferences for each learning style ranged from 7 to 49, and the scores of academic achievement ranged from 0 to 100. Table 2 Means (and Standard Deviations) of Academic Achievement by Students' Preferred Learning Styles Learning Styles Experience-driven Theory-driven Academic Achievement (n = 131) (n = 48) Technical courses 78.78 (5.68) 80.55 (6.58) General courses 74.03 (5.06) 84.26 (4.47) Note. Participants' scores of academic achievement ranged from 0 to 100.