Where courses have as an aim the promotion of reflective practice, it will enhance the achievement of the goal if the level of reflective thinking is assessed. To do this in a satisfactory way requires a reliable protocol for assessing the level of reflection in written work. This article presents a protocol that can be used to guide the allocation of work to four categories, namely: habitual action/non-reflection, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Intermediate categories can also be used. Detailed descriptors of each category to guide the process are provided. The protocol was tested by four assessors independently using it to grade a set of written work, and very good agreement was obtained.
[Copyright of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293355]

In the present study, the author investigated the role of thinking styles in university students' preferences for teaching styles and their conceptions of effective teachers. Students (121 men and 134 women) from the University of Hong Kong responded to 3 self-report tests: the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised (R. J. Sternberg, R. K. Wagner, & L-F. Zhang, 2003), the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory (L-F. Zhang, 2003c), and the Effective Teacher Inventory (L-F. Zhang, 2003b). Results indicated that even after age, gender, and academic discipline were controlled, particular thinking styles predisposed students to particular teaching styles. Moreover, as expected, students were open to more than just teaching styles that precisely matched their own thinking styles. Results also indicated that students' thinking styles made a difference in thir conceptions of effective teachers. Discussions are focused on the study's contributions to both the style literature and the growing body of knowledge on characteristics of effective teachers.
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.138.3.233-252]

The author investigated the relationship of thinking styles to modes of thinking. Participants were 371 freshmen (aged 18 and 19) from the University of Hong Kong. Participants responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory (R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner, 1992) and the Style of Learning and Thinking (Youth Form; E. P. Torrance, B. McCarthy, & M. T. Kolesinski, 1988). A major finding was that creativity generating and complex thinking styles were significantly positively correlated with the holistic mode of thinking but significantly negatively correlated with the analytic mode of thinking. Thinking styles that denote the tendency to norm favoring and simplistic information processing were significantly positively correlated with the analytic mode of thinking and significantly negatively correlated with the holistic mode of thinking. In a preliminary conclusion, it appears that the thinking style construct overlaps the mode of thinking construct. Implications of this finding for teachers and researchers are delineated. Key words: modes of thinking, thinking styles
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980209604153 ]

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between thinking styles and the big five personality traits. One-hundred-and-fifty-four (mean age 20 years) second-year university students from Hong Kong participated in the study. Participants responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory based on Sternberg's theory of mental self-government and to the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCare, 1992). Although significant relationships were identified between particular thinking styles and certain personality traits, it was concluded that it is premature to claim that a personality measure, such as the NEO-FFI can be used to measure thinking styles.
[Copyright of Educational Psychology is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410120101224]

The present study is a further examination of the contributions of thinking styles to academic achievement (see L-F. Zhang, 2001a, 2001b, 2002f; L-F. Zhang & R. J. Stemberg, 1998). Secondary school students in Hong Kong {N = 250; 131 from a Catholic boys' school and 119 from a Protestant girls' school) participated in the study. Students' scores on the Thinking Styles Inventory (R. J. Stemberg & R. K. Wagner, 1992) were used to predict their academic achievement in 16 subjects after age, gender, school class level, and performance on the Stemberg Triarchic Abilities Test (R. I. Stemberg, 1993) were controlled. Results indicated that the use of the hierarchical thinking style significantly contributed to better achievement in the social sciences and humanities and that the use of the judicial style uniquely contributed to better achievement in the natural sciences. The use of the monarchic thinking style significantly predicted students' achievement in design and technology. The results of this study suggest that thinking styles should be taken into account in school settings and that thinking styles that generate creativity should be cultivated in students.
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.138.4.351-370 ]

This article presents the results of an investigation of the construct validity of J. B. Biggs's (1987) theory of learning approaches and of R. J. Sternberg's (1988) theory of thinking styles in two Chinese populations. The study is also an examination of the nature of the relations between the two theories. University students from Hong Kong (n = 854) and from Nanjing, mainland China (n = 215), completed the Study Process Questionnaire (J. B. Biggs, 1992) and the Thinking Styles Inventory (R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner, 1992). Results indicated that both inventories were reliable and valid for assessing the constructs underlying their respective theories among both Hong Kong and Nanjing university students. Results also showed that the learning approaches and thinking styles are related in the hypothesized ways: The surface approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with less complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the legislative, judicial, liberal, and hierarchical styles. The deep approach was hypothesized to be positively and significantly correlated with styles associated with more complexity, and negatively and significantly correlated with the executive, conservative, local, and monarchic styles. Implications of these relations are discussed.
[Copyright of Journal of Psychology is the property of Heldref Publications. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598230 ]