To conduct the study, 172 students participated to fill out the questionnaires. As shown in Table1, 71 participants were male and 101 of them were female, with their age ranging from 20 to 38 (M=26.8, SD= 4.57) (Table 2). Regarding the participants’ educational profile, all participants were EFL learners at BA and MA levels. The demographic specifications of the participants are shown in T able 3 and 4. Monotheistic Concept
Due to the nature of the present study, which is a correlation research, the researchers administered both questionnaires to the same group of participants at two different sessions. Questionnaires were distributed while researchers were present to provide orientation to participants and help them in case of any possible question. The participants were given 30 minutes to answer the items carefully.
The Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised (TSI-R; Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2003) contains 13 scales corresponding to 13 thinking styles in Sternberg’s theory. TSI contained 65 items in its Chinese version and was translated into Persian and edited finally to be suited to Iranian EFL learners. The items were in seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe them at all) to 7 (describes them extremely well). TSI’s reliability and validity proved to be reasonable in different contexts (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006). Also, more studies indicated that the TSI has good psychometric properties (Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Kaufman, 2001).
Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme & Nygard, 1970; Ye & Hagtvet, 1988) is designed for middle school and university students. AMS consisted of 30 items originally and was translated and adapted to the Iranian educational context. The items of AMS were in a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (absolutely incorrect) to 4 (absolutely correct) and they were divided into two equal halves, which provide information for one of the two AMS subscales: motivation to approach success (MS), and motivation to avoid failure (MF). Since its construction, AMS has been used widely in different studies (e.g., Hagtvet &Li, 2000; Man, Nygard & Gjesme, 1994; Rand, 1978).
In order to account for the reasonable psychometric characteristics of the instruments, they were translated, piloted and revised. Hence, the reliability of 0.86 and 0.79 were observed for the Persian version of TSI-R and AMS respectively.
As a moderate positive correlation between thinking style and achievement motivation was observed, analyzing the correlation between thinking style subconstructs and achievement motivation subconstructs seems in order. To this aim, a Pearson correlation was run which showed moderate positive correlations between the achievement motivation to approach success(MS) and monarchic(/= 0.17, p<0.05), hierarchical(/= 0.25, p<0.05), legislative(/= 0.29, p<0.05), local(/= 0.29, p<0.05), global(/= 0.15, p<0.05), executive (r= 0.37, p<0.05), internal(/= 0.29, p<0.05), conservative(r= 0.21, p<0.05) judicial(r= 0.32, p<0.05), anarchic(r= 0.35, p<0.05), liberal(r= 0.34, p<0.05); and no significant correlation with external(/= 0.11, p>0.05), oligarchic(r= 0.14, p>0.05). On the other hand, the results showed that achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF) as the second subconstruct of achievement motivation indicated moderate positive correlation with monarchic(r= 0.30, p<0.05), global(r= 0.18, p<0.05), conservative(r= 0.24, p<0.05), anarchic(r= 0.27, p<0.05), and no significant correlation with other subconstructs of thinking style (p>0.05). (Appendix 1)
Since Zhang et.al (2005, 2006) partitioned these 13 sub constructs of thinking style into three major types, for the ease of interpretation, these three types are considered in further analysis. In the same line, the following table shows the positive correlation of all three types of thinking style with the achievement motivation, while type III thinking styles having the highest interface with Total Achievement Motivation (r= 0.50, p<0.05), followed by the type II (r= 0.47, p<0.05) thinking styles and type I(r= 0.32, p<0.05) respectively.(Table 7)
Beside the correlation of thinking style types with achievement motivation in general, the correlation with two subconstructs of achievement motivation was computed. As depicted in Table 8, all thinking style types showed moderate positive correlation with achievement motivation to approach success (MS) respectively: Type I thinking style and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.41, p<0.05); type II and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.39, p<0.05); type III and achievement motivation to approach success (MS) (r= 0.42, p<0.05). Thinking style types also showed positive interface with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF); Type II (r= 0.27, p<0.05) and type III (r= 0.27, p<0.05); however, Type I thinking style revealed to have no significant correlation with achievement motivation to avoid failure (MF). (p>0.05)
Table 8. Correlation between type of thinking styles and achievement motivation sub constructs