The present study revealed the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ thinking styles and achievement motivation. Results showed a moderate positive correlation between the thinking styles and achievement motivation in general. Moreover, moderate positive correlations were observed between all three thinking style types (namely, I, II and III) and total achievement motivation as a whole. These thinking style types also showed moderate positive correlations with achievement motivation to approach success (MS) and achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF); however, the relationship was observed to be more significant between thinking types and motivation to approach success (MS). Type I thinking styles showed to have no relationship with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF). Food supply Chain
The analysis also showed thinking styles to be a moderate predictor of achievement motivation although type I thinking styles showed negative predictive power.
As the third phase of analysis, the differences between the students’ thinking styles and achievement motivation in terms of gender, age, major and their interactions were probed; the results showed the gender and major interaction and also the gender by itself showed relationship with students’ thinking style and achievement motivation.
The findings of this study proved to confirm the previous studies done in some related realms to some extent (Fan & Zhang, 2009), and showed contradictory findings in some other aspects. In no case thinking style types showed negative correlation with achievement motivation, whereas, Fan & Zhang (2009) came up with a negative correlation between type I and III thinking styles with achievement motivation to avoid failure. Also, they found a negative correlation between type II thinking styles and achievement motivation to achieve success.
The results of the study cast light on the relationship between thinking styles and achievement motivation. This relationship has been investigated in various ways through different statistical analyses. Thinking styles as a predicator variable determined the achievement motivation to some extent. The present study seems to be pioneer in investigating the predictability of achievement motivation due to the thinking style. Although the results of this study showed some partial variation with those of relevant previous studies (Fan& Zhang, 2009), the present study confirmed that these two variables under the study should be meticulously taken into account.
There may be some limitations to be mentioned for the present study. As the researchers did not have access to English or Persian version of achievement motivation, they had to translate and adapt the Chinese version of the thinking styles questionnaire to be geared to the Iranian educational contexts. Also due to the novelty of the nature of this study, the available literature about thinking style types and achievement motivation was very limited. Finally, the tools of research were questionnaires; that is, other techniques were not used for collecting data.
Due to the factors involved in educational contexts, the complexity of the learners thinking styles and the effects of many extraneous factors on achievement, the results have been challenging in different ways. It seems that similar studies of these type needs to be replicated within some larger samples in different contexts to help generalize the research findings more confidently.
It is suggested that thinking style types be correlated with some other variables. Achievement motivation and thinking styles can be correlate with teachers efficacy, teachers sense of plausibility, teachers perspectives and so on. Furthermore, the psychometric characteristics of the instruments measuring the construct are expecting to be reasonable.