The relationship between cognitive style and success in a computer-augmented learning environment was investigated. Fifty-nine students enrolled in a developmental education course in algebra were assigned to one of two instructors and one of two treatment conditions (computer-augmented instruction or traditional instruction). Student cognitive style (field-independence-dependence) was determined by performance on the Group Embedded Figures Test. Significant variables identified from a stepwise regression included main effects for prior achievement, cognitive style, and instructor. In addition, a significant treatment by cognitive style interaction was found. Field-dependent students exhibited greater math achievement in a computer-augmented environment, whereas students with indiscriminate cognitive style demonstrated greater achievement in a traditional learning environment. The results supported the hypothesis that learning environments differentially effect students with dissimilar cognitive style characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HamblenJ. W.BairdT. B. (eds.), Fourth Inventory: Computers in Higher Education, Interuniversity Communications Council, Boston, 1979.
2.
KlingR., The New Wave of Computing in Colleges and Universities: A Social Analysis, Outlook, 19:1/2, pp. 8–14, 1986.
3.
FleitL. H., Computerizing America's Campuses: How Technology is Changing Higher Education, Electronic Learning, 6:6, pp. 18–23, 1987.
4.
ChambersJ. A.SprecherJ. W., Computer-Assisted Instruction: Current Trends and Critical Issues, Communications of the ACM, 23, pp. 332–342, 1980.
5.
BurkeR. L., CAI Sourcebook: Background and Procedures for CAI in Educational and Industrial Training, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982.
6.
Van DijkT. A. M.GastkemperF.MoonenJ.RomeijnW., Motives for CAI in Post-Secondary Education, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12:1, pp. 8–11, 1985.
7.
LepperM. R., Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and Social Issues, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 1–18, 1985.
8.
KearsleyG. P., The Cost of CAI: A Matter of Assumption, AEDS Journal, 10:3, pp. 100–110, 1977.
9.
PadenD. W.DalgaardB. R.BarrM. D., A Decade of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Economic Education, 9:4, pp. 14–20, 1977.
10.
AikenR. M.BraunL., Into the 1980s with Microcomputer-Based Learning, Computer, 13:7, pp. 11–16, 1980.
11.
DenceM., Toward Defining the Role of CAI: A Review, Educational Technology, 20:11, pp. 50–54, 1980.
12.
MurphyR. T.AppelL. R., Evaluation of the Plato IV Computer-Based Education System in the Community College, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1977.
13.
KulikJ. A.KulikC-L. C.CohenP. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based College Teaching: A Meta-analysis of Findings, Review of Educational Research, 50, pp. 525–544, 1980.
14.
KulikC-L. C.KulikJ. A., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Colleges, AEDS Journal, 19:2/3, pp. 81–108, 1986.
15.
HartleyS. S., Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Individually Paced Instruction in Mathematics, Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 4910A, 1974, (University Microfilms No. 74-3205), 1977.
16.
BurnsP. K.BozemanW. C., Computer-Assisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?Educational Technology, 21, 32–39, 1981.
17.
HartigG., Implementing CAI in a University Learning Center, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11:4, pp. 113–116, 1983.
18.
FisherG., Where CAI is Effective: A Summary of the Research, Electronic Learning, 3:3, pp. 82, 84, 1983.
19.
KoganN., Educational Implications of Cognitive Styles, in Psychology and Educational Practice, LesserG. S. (ed.), Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois, 1971.
20.
WitkinH. A., Cognitive- Style in Academic Performance and in Teacher-Student Relations, in Individuality in Learning, MessickS. (ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1976.
21.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R.CoxP. W., Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47, pp. 1–64, 1977.
22.
AllportG. W., Personality, A Psychological Interpretation, Holt and Company, New York, 1937.
23.
SchwenT. M.BednerA. K.HodsonK., Cognitive Styles: Boon or Bane?Viewpoint in Teaching and Learning, 55, pp. 49–63, 1979.
24.
MessickS., The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice, Educational Psychologist, 19, pp. 59–74, 1984.
25.
ShipmanS.ShipmanV. C., Cognitive Styles: Some Conceptual, Methodological, and Applied Issues, Review of Research in Education, 12, pp. 229–291, 1985.
26.
WitkinH. A., The Nature and Importance of Individual Differences in Perception, Journal of Personality, 18, pp. 145–170, 1949.
27.
HahnJ. S., An Exploratory Study of the Relationship between Learner Cognitive Styles and Three Different Teaching Methods Used to Teach Computer Literacy with the Pittsburgh Information Retrieval System, International Journal of Instructional Media, 11:2, pp. 147–158, 1983–84.
28.
BurgerK., Computer-assisted Instruction: Learning Style and Academic Achievement, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12:1, pp. 21–22, 1985.
29.
BarnettR., Elementary Algebra, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1980.
30.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A., A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1971.
31.
KulikJ. A., Integrating Findings from Different Levels of Instruction, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, 1981.
32.
SkinnerM. E., Attitudes of College Students toward Computer-assisted Instruction: An Essential Variable for Successful Implementation, Educational Technology, 28:2, pp. 7–15, 1988.
33.
ClarkR. E., Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, Review of Educational Research, 53, pp. 445–459, 1983.
