This research aimed to investigate whether or not intellectual styles are value-laden and if they are malleable. This aim was achieved through understanding the types of intellectual styles that teachers and students prefer each other to use in the teaching-learning process. It was further achieved by examining whether or not teaching styles affect students’ learning styles and their career interests. This research employed a mixture of experimental and longitudinal designs as well as a combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures. It was composed of one pilot study and three main studies. The pilot study was intended to evaluate the two inventories (the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory, PTSLI, and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory, PTSTI) used in the first study. The purpose of Study One was to identify teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles and students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles. A total of 226 teachers and 268 students participated in Study One. A series of data analyses revealed that the PTSLI and the PTSTI were applicable to Chinese secondary school teachers and students. The pilot study and Study One consistently revealed that teachers and students preferred each other to use Type I styles in learning and teaching, respectively. These findings also indicated that styles are value-laden. Study Two was an experimental study to examine the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and on their career interests. A total of seven teachers and 464 students participated in the control group, whereas the experimental group was composed of six teachers and 219 students. Classroom instruction was implemented in each participating teacher’s school for one semester (6 months). A pre-test and post-test were conducted before and after the classroom instruction. Students’ learning styles were measured by the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II in both tests. At the time of post-test, students also completed the Self-Directed Search that assessed their career interests. In a series of repeated-measures MANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and paired t-tests conducted in Study Two, changes in students’ learning styles in both the control and the experimental groups were identified. Students in the experimental group demonstrated a trend towards Type I learning styles, whereas students in the control group increased their use of Type II learning styles after the instruction period. Furthermore, teachers’ teaching styles had a direct impact on students’ development of particular types of career interests. Students in the experimental group developed a wider range of career interests than students in the control group. Study Three was a qualitative study conducted among 16 students to explore how and why their learning styles underwent changes. Findings from Studies Two and Three supported the contention that styles are malleable. Results demonstrated that students in the control group showed more features of using Type II learning styles, whereas students in the experimental group gradually increased their use of Type I learning styles after the instruction period. Contributions and implications of the findings are discussed. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

This investigation examines how Ms. Jones scaffolds students' science language development. The study closely investigates the instructional strategies she used to help her students move from "informal Science talk" to "formal Science talk," and looks at the strategies she implemented under the scope of the anticipated themes of verbal cues, nonverbal cues, and praise. "Informal science talk" is defined in this study as a limited domain of discourse with little or no science vocabulary, while "formal science talk" is defined as an extended discourse that included the appropriate uses of science-specific vocabulary. In Ms. Jones' classroom the goal is to teach for understanding and lifelong learning, in accordance with the book How People Learn (National Research Council 2000), which contains implications for the teaching of Science. According to the standards of that book, Ms. Jones has the required subject knowledge, and an understanding of how students learn and the short- and long-term outcomes of such learning. She has created a classroom environment that fosters student thinking through participation in high-quality lessons and laboratory experiments. Through an iterative process of questioning and answering, students are given the opportunity to think about what they are learning and to also self- assess and be able to understand what they do not know. The research method used was a case study, that allowed the researcher to study, interpret and present an in-depth investigation of one teacher and how she scaffolded her students' language of school Science (LSS) development with technical vocabulary as an integral part of that process. The method of analysis was developed from a sociocultural perspective of learning. Classroom observations were conducted, and recorded via fieldnotes and videotaping of lessons for five weeks during the Spring of 2005 and four weeks during the Spring of 2006. The themes that emerged showed that the teacher's instructional designs were embedded in the Inquiry Model (Data Set II--Spring 2005) and the Science Process Skills Model (Data Set II--Spring 2006). The findings of the study reveal the characteristics of a superior type of learning environment organized around the instructional designs that Ms. Jones used. Her technique promoted the development of rich science language integrated with the vocabulary of the domain. Ms. Jones' medium of instruction was "talk." She overtly used verbal cues to promote her students science language development, which was the language of school science and reflected the different domains of the subject at the elementary grades (the Nature of Science, Life, Earth, and Physical Sciences). This study shows that a knowledgeable teacher not only knows the subject matter; she also knows how to give the right feedback, what demonstrations or analogies to use, and how to engage students in scientific investigations while providing appropriate support (scaffolding). / text

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

No description available.