Ramification of Metacognition and Cognitive Styles on Thinking Styles with impeding effect of Cognitive Rigidity in Engineers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/eyjvgz43Keywords:
Thinking styles, Metacognition, Cognitive styles, Cognitive rigidityAbstract
This paper establishes a connection between concepts of thinking styles in conjunction with cognitive psychology. The eventual goal is the development of a deeper understanding and a formal methodology by examining the repercussions of metacognition and cognitive styles on thinking styles. The mediating role of cognitive rigidity with cognitive styles, metacognition, and thinking styles is also assessed. A sample of 205 engineers from different public and private engineering firms was taken, which were used for data analysis. SPSS 22.0 and partial least squares (PLS) analysis with Smart PLS 3.0 software are used. Structural analysis was applied and suggested that cognitive styles and metacognition influence the thinking styles and the way the task is performed. Moreover, cognitive rigidity, stress, depression, and anxiety mediate the relationship between cognitive styles, metacognition, and thinking styles. The thinking style in context to cognitive styles, metacognition, helps in understanding and improving the efficiency by planning, evaluating, monitoring, and implication of the task that they are performing. Stress, anxiety, and depression act as cognitive rigidities that hamper and impede the metacognition and cognitive styles. Implications, suggestions, and limitations for future research are also provided.
Downloads
References
1. Asrami, Y. (2016). Comparing different thinking styles and marital satisfaction among engineers of urban and nonurban areas. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 13, 67-69.
2. Bensley, D. A. & Spero, R. A. (2014). Improving critical thinking skills and metacognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 55-68.
3. Braojos, C.G. (2013). Direct and indirect effects between thinking styles, metacognitive strategies, and creativity in college students. Annals of psychology, 29(1), 159-170.
4. Coffield, F. (2005). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
5. Chen, W., Gong, Y., Han, T., Dib, H.H., Yang, G., Zhuang, R. (2014). Prevalence of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms and Related Risk Factors among Physicians in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.
6. Dikshit, A. (2014). A Study of Job Stress Level among Engineering Professionals Working in the Manufacturing Sector in India. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 2(2), 559-564.
7. Dixon, A. (2010). Experts and novices: differences in their use of mental representation and metacognition in engineering design.
8. Ali, F., Amin, M., Cobanoglu, C. (2016). An Integrated Model of Service Experience, Emotions, Satisfaction, and Price Acceptance: An Empirical Analysis in the Chinese Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25:4,449-475.
9. Farhoush, M., Ahmadi, M. (2013). The relationship of thinking styles and learning strategies with achievement motivation. Developmental Psychology Journal of Iranian Psychologists, 297-396.
10. Gridley, M. (2014). Cross-cultural Comparison of Engineers' Thinking Styles. Psychology Journal.
11. Greene,M.(2016). A cognitive framework for engineering systems thinking. Systems Engineering Research.
12. Gozef, K.S. (2015). Linear and nonlinear thinking: A multidimensional model and measure.Journal of creative behavior, 49 (2), 116-119.
13. Holland, J. (2015). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers, Prentice Hall.
14. Huincahue, J., Gaete, C., Garrido, V. (2019). Thinking styles and computer engineering training: an empirical study, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering, and Education.
15. Heidari, F., Bahrami, Z. (2012). The relationship between thinking styles and metacognitive awareness among Iranian EFL learners. The international journal of linguistics, 4(3), 12-15.
16. Herbst, E., Maree, T. (2015). Leadership abilities and thinking styles. Higher Education Leadership, 20(5), 345-352.
17. Lawanto, O. (2010). Students' metacognition during an engineering design project. Performance Improvement Quarterly.
18. Lovibond, P.F., Lovibond, S.H. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.), Psychology Foundation, Sydney.
19. Newell.J., Dahm.K., Harvey.R. (2004). Developing metacognitive engineering teams. Chemical Engineering Education.
20. Kesici, S., Erdogan, A., Ozteke, H. I. (2011). Are the Dimensions of Metacognitive Awareness Differing in Prediction of Mathematics and Geometry Achievement? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2658–2662.
21. Khany, R., Amoli, F.A. (2013). The impact of leadership style, thinking style, and job satisfaction on Iranian EFL teacher retention. European online journal of natural and social science, 2(2), 533-544.
22. Lasikiewicz, N. (2015). Perceived stress, thinking style, and paranormal belief. Imagination, cognition, and personality, 35(3), 306-320.
23. Poh, L.B. (2016). Assessing the Metacognitive Awareness among the Foundation in Engineering Students. IAFOR Journal of Education.
24. Posselt, J. R. & Lipson, S. K. (2016). Competition, Anxiety, and Depression in the College Classroom: Variations by Student Identity and Field of Study. Journal of College Student Development 57(8), 973-989.
25. Rasi, R.S. (2014). The Impact of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction among Engineers. Proceedings of the 2014 4th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bali, Indonesia.
26. Rengamani,J.(2018).Impact of Occupational Stress on the Job Satisfaction of Civil Engineers in the Construction Companies in Chennai. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(8), 542–550.
27. Rothmann, S. (2001). Occupational Stress of Engineers in South Africa. South African Business Review, 10(2).
28. Srinivas, D. (2014). Cognitive styles of high school mathematics teachers. Scholarly research journal of humanity science and English language, 1(4), 425-430.
29. Schmid, H. (2001). Theory and Practice: thinking styles in engineering and science. Australasian Journal of Information Systems.
30. Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Sternberg, R.J. (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Saleh, K. (2000). Stress level and coping strategies of college students. Journal of Physical Education and Sports Management, 4(1).
33. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking Styles Inventory—Revised II. Unpublished test, Tufts University.
34. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Mental self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, (31), 197-224.
35. Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for Thinking Styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36-40.
36. Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Valeyeva, E., Kupriyanov, R., Romanova, G. (2017). The Role of Metacognitive Skills in Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education.
38. Zhang, L.F. (2002). Thinking styles and models of thinking: implications for education and research. Journal Psychology, 136(3), 245-261.
39. Zhang, L.F. & Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
