{"title":"聋人、重听及听力正常学生的思维方式与职业决策自我效能感","authors":"Sanyin Cheng, K. Sin","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study explores how students’ thinking styles are related to their career decision-making self-efficacy, by administering the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form to 484 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) and 449 hearing university students in mainland China. Results show that, among all participants, those with Type I styles (i.e., more creativity-generating, less structured, and cognitively more complex) had higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy, while those with Type II styles (i.e., more norm-favoring, more structured, and cognitively more simplistic) had lower levels. The contributions, limitations, and implications of the present research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":"29 1","pages":"167 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking Styles and Career Decision-making Self-efficacy among Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Students\",\"authors\":\"Sanyin Cheng, K. Sin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study explores how students’ thinking styles are related to their career decision-making self-efficacy, by administering the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form to 484 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) and 449 hearing university students in mainland China. Results show that, among all participants, those with Type I styles (i.e., more creativity-generating, less structured, and cognitively more complex) had higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy, while those with Type II styles (i.e., more norm-favoring, more structured, and cognitively more simplistic) had lower levels. The contributions, limitations, and implications of the present research are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46668,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exceptionality\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"167 - 181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exceptionality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptionality","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1850452","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Thinking Styles and Career Decision-making Self-efficacy among Deaf or Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Students
ABSTRACT This study explores how students’ thinking styles are related to their career decision-making self-efficacy, by administering the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale–Short Form to 484 deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH) and 449 hearing university students in mainland China. Results show that, among all participants, those with Type I styles (i.e., more creativity-generating, less structured, and cognitively more complex) had higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy, while those with Type II styles (i.e., more norm-favoring, more structured, and cognitively more simplistic) had lower levels. The contributions, limitations, and implications of the present research are discussed.