4. Conclusion, implications, and limitations
The FTL questionnaire was designed to serve as both a research instrument and a self-assessment tool. It may assist in the evaluation of learners' dispositional inclination to think flexibly or assist in explaining individual differences regarding the utilization of new learning methods or new technologies. Learners can use the FTL questionnaire as a reflective tool, raising awareness to their own strengths and weaknesses. Researchers can use it for examining the degree to which pedagogical interventions may affect learners' flexible thinking. Future research tied to FTL can address questions, such as: Whether and how can flexible thinking in learning be enhanced? Does flexible thinking depend on the learning contents or context? What are the relationships between flexible thinking and collaborative learning? The study of these important questions may promote the growing body of knowledge on learning in an era of rapid changes and reforms. Whilst the validity and reliability of the FTL questionnaire were established through a rigorous six-stage study, limitations should be noted as well as recommendations for further research. The FTL scale was assessed by measuring ratings of undergraduate students who were enrolled in a variety of education and teaching diploma courses. We specifically targeted this population since the FTL scale was designed to examine flexible thinking in the process of learning. However, this led to a high percentage of female respondents. Although our population is in line with the female/male ratio in undergraduate education programs (AACTE, 2013), for wider generalizability, the FTL questionnaire should be examined in other learning situations and educational contexts. This may include learners from diverse age groups, academic backgrounds, ethnicities, and nationalities. Therefore, although our study indicated promising results for the FTL scale's validity and reliability, further examination should be conducted to meet the growing concern about reproducibility of social and cognitive studies (Open Science Collaboration, 2015).