Measures of formal operations and learning style predicted success in introductory statistics and computer science courses. Using a final course grade cutoff of 80% or better as a criterion of success in the course, a discriminant analysis correctly classified 81% of the statistics students and 72% of the computer science students. Success was related to the presence of the ability to act as a formal operator and to the absence of a reliance on the concrete experiences learning style. These findings highlight the need to examine both cognitive maturity and learning style in studies of academic success at the college level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsA. B. (1979). Some thoughts on reasoning capacities implicitly expected of college students. In LochheadJ.ClementJ. (Eds.), Cognitive process instruction: Research on teaching thinking skills (pp. 209–215). Philadelphia; Franklin Institute Press.
2.
BarkerR. J.UngerE. A. (1983). A prediction for success in an introductory programming class based upon abstract reasoning development. SIGCSE Bulletin, 15, 154–158.
3.
ButcherD. F.MuthW. A. (1985). Predicting performance in an introductory computer science course. Communications of the ACM, 28, 263–268.
4.
CampbellP. F.McCabeG. P. (1984). Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer science major. Communications of the ACM, 27, 1108–1113.
5.
ChiappettaE. L. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level. Science Education, 60, 253–261.
6.
ForsythG. A.BohlingP. H. (1986, August). A Piagetian approach to teaching statistics and research methodology. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
7.
FulletR. G. (Ed.). (1987). Piagetian programs in higher education.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, ADAPT Project.
8.
GarrettH. F. (1949). A review and interpretation of investigations of factors related to scholastic success in colleges of arts and science and teachers colleges. Journal of Experimental Education, 18, 91–138.
9.
GarveyM.BootmanJ. L.McGhanW. F.MeredithK. (1984). An assessment of learning styles among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 48, 134–140.
10.
GiambraL. M. (1976). Mathematical background and grade-point average as predictors of course grade in an undergraduate behavioral statistics course: A replication. Teaching of Psychology, 3, 184–185.
11.
GilliganC.MurphyJ. M. (1979). Development from adolescence to adulthood: The philosopher and the dilemma of the fact. In KuhnD. (Ed.), Intellectual development beyond childhood (pp. 85–99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
HassellJ. (1982). Cognitive style and a first course in computer science: A success story. Association for Educational Data Systems Monitor, 21, 33–35.
13.
Higgins-TrenkA.GaiteA. J. H. (1971, September). Elusiveness of formal operational thought in adolescence. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
14.
HuntD.RandhawaB. (1973). Relationship between and among cognitive variables and achievement in computational science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 921–928.
15.
InheldetB.PiagetJ. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence.New York: Basic Books.
16.
JonesJ. L. (1983). Predicting success of programming students. Collegiate Microcomputer, 1, 277–280.
17.
KarplusR. (1974). Science curriculum improvement study: Teacher's handbook.Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science.
18.
KeenP. G. (1977). Personality and cognitive style. In van MaanenJ. (Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 89–105). New York: Wiley.
19.
KolbD. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process (Working Paper No. 535–71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
20.
KolbD. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual.Boston: McBer and Company.
21.
KurtzB. I. (1980). Investigating the relationship between the development of abstract reasoning and performance in an introductory programming class. SIGCSE Bulletin, 12, 110–117.
22.
LawsonA. E.NordlandF. H.DeVitoA. (1975). Relationship of formal reasoning to achievement, aptitudes, and attitudes in preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 423–431.
23.
LovellK. A. (1961). A follow-up study of Inhelder and Piaget's growth of logical thinking. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 143–153.
24.
MartoranoS. C. (1977). A developmental analysis of performance on Piaget's formal operations tasks. Developmental Psychology, 13, 666–672.
25.
McKinnonJ. W.RennerJ. W. (1971). Are colleges concerned with intellectual development?American Journal of Physics, 39, 1047–1052.
26.
PetersenC. G.HoweT. G. (1979). Predicting academic success in introduction to computers. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 12, 182–192.
RobergeJ. J.FlexerB. K. (1982). The Formal Operational Reasoning Test. The Journal of General Psychology, 106, 61–67.
29.
StevensD. J. (1983). Cognitive processes and success of students in instructional computer courses. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 16, 228–233.
30.
Tomlinson-KeaseyC. (1972). Formal operations in females from eleven to fifty-four years of age. Developmental Psychology, 6, 364.
31.
Tomlinson-KeaseyC. (1976, September). Can we develop abstract thought (ADAPT) in college freshmen? One year later. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
32.
WasonP. C. (1968). Reason about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281.
