Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering successful intellectual styles for creativity

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Education Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intellectual styles refer to people’s preferred ways of processing information and dealing with tasks. Individuals who have a propensity for using a wide range of styles—always including creativity-generating styles—are said to possess successful intellectual styles. The author argues that teachers should and can encourage creativity among students by cultivating successful intellectual styles. To make this argument, the author first presents two main controversial issues over the nature of intellectual styles: style value and style malleability. She then cites research evidence revealing that creativity-generating intellectual styles are more adaptive than are norm-favoring styles; that the positive growth in some domains of student learning and development calls for successful intellectual styles; and that styles can be developed. Following this, the author points out the limitations of the existing research and suggests ways to overcome the limitations. Finally, the author proposes strategies that teachers could use in promoting creativity through fostering successful intellectual styles among students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The “Appendix” presents the major features of the individual styles (in this case, all being Type I or Type II styles) involved in the studies to be reviewed in this paper.

References

  • Amador-Campos, J., & Kirchner-Nebot, T. (2001). Children’s embedded figures test and matching familiar figures test-20: Factorial structure for boys and girls from 6 to 11 years old. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(3), 709–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 478–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1961). Differential aptitude tests—Form M. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. B., & Douglas, V. I. (1972). Cognitive styles and responses to the threat of frustration. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 4(1), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooperman, E. W. (1980). Field differentiation and intelligence. Journal of Psychology, 105(1), 29–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. (1970). Identification of creativity: The individual. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2009). The place of cognitive style in pedagogy: Realizing potential in practice. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 169–208). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W. (2008). Thinking styles among university students in Shanghai: Comparing traditional and hypermedia instructional environments. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(7A), 2808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fling, S., Thomas, A., Gallaher, M. (1981). Participant characteristics and the effects of two types of meditation versus quiet sitting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(4), 784–790.

  • Fuqua, R. W., Bartsch, T. W., & Phye, G. D. (1975). An investigation of the relationship between cognitive tempo and creativity in preschool-age children. Child Development, 46, 779–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B, Jr. (1965). The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P., & Merrifield, P. R. (1960). The structure of intellect model: its uses and implications. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, No. 24.

  • Henson, K. T., & Borthwick, P. (1984). Matching styles: A historical look. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, N. (1989). The creative brain (2nd ed.). Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1972). Professional manual for the self-directed search. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-directed Search. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N. (1956). A short form of Witkin’s embedded figures test. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N., Messick, S., & Meyers, C. T. (1962). The role of memory and color in group and individual embedded-figures measures of field-independence. Lawrence Township, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalil, P. A., & Boujettif, M. (2005). Some characteristics of Nobel laureates. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2 & 3), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, C. (1923). Psychological types. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (1965). Matching familiar figures test. Cambridge, MA: Author, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Philips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78(1, Whole No. 578), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp, S. A., & Konstadt, N. L. (1963). Manual for the children’s embedded figures test. Oxford, England: Cognitive Tests.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, N. (1980). A style of life, a life of style—Review of cognitive styles in personal and cultural adaptation. Contemporary Psychology, 25, 595–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, N. (1989). A stylistic perspective on metaphor and aesthetic sensitivity in children. In T. Globerson & T. Zelniker (Eds.), Cognitive style and cognitive development. (Human Development, Volume 3). (pp. 192–213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

  • Lau, C. H. (2014). Thinking styles, motivational orientations, and achievements in physics: Do teachers’ teaching styles make a difference? Unpublished Thesis, The University of Hong Kong.

  • Lowman, R. L., Williams, R. E., & Leeman, G. E. (1985). The structure and relationship of college women’s primary abilities and vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 298–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 269–302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magno, C. (2013). Assessing students’ critical thinking and approaches to learning. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2), 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1994). The matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A., & Janeke, H. C. (2009). The relationship between thinking styles and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, I. (1978). Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otis, A. S. (1954). The Otis quick-scoring mental ability test. New York, NY: World Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. K., Park, K. H., & Choe, H. S. (2005). Relationship between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2–3), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J. C. (1998). Standard progressive matrices. London, UK: Lewis & Co., Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royce, J. R. (1973). The conceptual framework for a multi-factor theory of individuality. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Contributions of multivariate analysis to psychological theory. London, UK: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCAT. (1957). The cooperative school and college ability tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleser, R., Meyers, A. W., & Cohen, R. (1981). Generalization of self-instructions: Effects of general versus specific content, active rehearsal, and cognitive level. Child Development, 52, 335–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipman, S. L. (1989). Limitations of applying cognitive styles to early childhood education. Early Childhood Development and Care, 51, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spotts, J. V., & Mackler, B. (1967). Relationships of field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles to creative test performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24(1), 239–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking styles inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University.

  • Tai, R. (2012). The impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and career interests. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.

  • Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Engle Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P. (1988). SOLAT (style of learning and thinking) manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrance, E. P., & Reynolds, C. R. (1978). Images of the future of gifted adolescents: Effects of alienation and specialized cerebral functioning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(1), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Critical thinking appraisal manual. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A. (1948). The effect of training of structural aids on performance in three tests of space orientation. CAA Div. Research Report, No. 80.

  • Witkin, H. A. (1954). Personality through perception: An experimental and clinical study. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A. (1978). Cognitive styles in personal and cultural adaptation: The 1977 Heinz Werner lectures. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Rasking, F., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, group embedded figures test: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F. (1997). The Zhang cognitive development inventory. (Unpublished test. The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong).

  • Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles and cognitive development. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F. (2013). The malleability of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F. (Under contract). The value of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intellectual styles. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 63–85). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Learning, Development, and Diversity, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

    Li-fang Zhang

Authors
  1. Li-fang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li-fang Zhang.

Additional information

This paper is based on an invited talk given at The 15th International Conference on Educational Research Leading Creative Minds: Talent Development and Convergence Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea, October 15–17, 2014. Preparation for this paper is supported by the Committee on Research and Conference Grants as administered by the University of Hong Kong.

Appendix: Individual styles involved in the studies reviewed

Appendix: Individual styles involved in the studies reviewed

Style construct

Individual style

Key characteristics

Learning approach

Surfaceb

Reproduce what is taught to meet the minimum requirement

Deepa

Gain a real understanding of what is learned

Career personality type

Artistica

Deal with tasks that provide opportunities to use imagination

Conventionalb

Work with data under well-structured situations

Mode of thinking/brain dominance

Holistica

Process information in an intuitive, Gestalt-type, and synthesized manner

Analyticb

Process information in a piecemeal, analytical, and sequential manner

Personality style

Sensingb

Rely primarily on concrete information provided by the five senses

Intuitivea

Like to find general patterns and new ways of doing things

Judgingb

Prefer more structured learning environments

Perceivinga

Prefer learning situations that are more free, open, and flexible

Conceptual tempo

Reflectivea

Tend to consider and reflect on alternative solution possibilities

Impulsiveb

Tend to respond impulsively without sufficient forethought

Psychological differentiation

Field independent

Tend to see objects or details as discrete from their backgrounds

Field dependent

Tend to be affected by the prevailing field or context

Thinking style

Legislativea

Prefer to work on tasks that allow creativity and autonomy

Judiciala

Prefer to work on tasks that allow for one’s evaluation

Hierarchicala

Prefer to distribute attention to several tasks prioritized according to one’s valuing of the tasks

Globala

Tend to pay more attention to the overall picture of an issue

Liberalb

Prefer to work on tasks that involve novelty and ambiguity

Executiveb

Prefer to work on tasks with clear instructions and structures

Monarchicb

Prefer to work on tasks that allow complete focus on one thing at a time

Localb

Prefer to work on tasks that require working with concrete details

Conservativeb

Prefer to work on tasks that allow one to adhere to the existing rules and procedures

  1. aType I intellectual styles; b Type II intellectual styles

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Lf. Fostering successful intellectual styles for creativity. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 16, 183–192 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9378-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9378-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation