Field-dependent/independent groups' numerical estimation was assessed with respect to different distractors. Participants were 81 college students with field-dependent or field-independent cognitive styles. Cognitive style had a significant main effect on reaction without distractors. When the number of distractors was double the number of targets, the estimation accuracy of the field-dependent and field-independent groups differed. Under this double-distractors condition, both the field-dependent and field-independent participants used logarithmic representation more than linear representation in their numerical estimations, but no significant between-group differences were found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-EneziD. F. (2004) Difficulties associated with teaching and learning mathematics: a study of psychological factors affecting pupils' performance. Unpublished master's thesis, Science Education Centre, Univer. of Glasgow.
2.
Al-EneziD. F. (2008) A study of learning mathematics related to some cognitive factors and to attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Glasgow.
3.
AllikF., & TuulmetsT. (1991) The perception of visual numerosity In JohnC. D. (Eds.), Vision and visual dysfunction.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 125–142.
4.
Amador-CamposJ. A., & Kirchner-NebotT. (1999) Correlations among scores on measures of field dependence-independence cognitive style, cognitive ability, and sustained attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 236–239.
5.
AtkinsonJ.FrancisM. R., & CampbellF. W. (1976) The dependence of the visual numerosity limit on orientation, colour and grouping in the stimulus. Perception, 5, 335–342.
6.
BaddeleyA. D. (1999) Essentials of human memory.Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
7.
BaoM., & PuA-S. (2002) [Study of the relationship between the representation of solving the mathematical analysis problem and the staged using FDI method]. [Journal of Mathematics Education], 11, 89–92. [in Chinese]
8.
BednarekH., & OrzechowskiJ. (2008) Cognitive and temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 39, 54–65.
9.
BoondaoS., & RowleyG. (1991) The effect of assignments for field-dependent/independent students in teaching mathematics by distance education. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Queensland, Australia, November 26-30.
10.
BoothJ., & SieglerR. (2006) Developmental and individual differences in pure numerical estimation. Developmental Psychology, 41, 189–201.
11.
BurgessA., & BarlowH. B. (1983) The precision of numerosity discrimination in arrays of random dots. Vision Research, 23, 811–820.
12.
CaiF. Z.HuangS. L., & YanN. X. (2004) [The effect of figure arrangement on numerical estimation]. In [Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference of the Taiwan Psychology Association], National Political Univer., Taibei, Taiwan, September 25-26. [in Chinese]
13.
CaninoC, & CicchelliT. (1988) Cognitive style, computerized treatments on mathematics achievement and reaction to treatments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(3), 253–264.
14.
CaoC. H.CaoL. R., & MaG. R. (2005) [An eye-movement study of cognitive style effect to the recognition performance of irregular geometrical figures]. [Human Ergonomics], 11, 9–12. [in Chinese]
15.
ChristouK. (2001) Difficulties in solving algebra story problems with secondary pupils. Unpublished master's thesis, Science Education Centre, Univer. of Glasgow.
16.
ClaytonJ. (1996) A criterion for estimation tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27, 87–102.
17.
DassonvilleP.WaltersE., & LungerK. A. (2006) Illusions of space, field dependence, and the efficiency of working memory. Journal of Vision, 6, 476.
18.
DavisJ. K. (1991) Educational implications of field dependence-independence. In WapnerS. & DemickJ. (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: cognitive styles across the lifespan.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 149–175.
19.
DavisJ. K., & FrankB. M. (1979) Learning and memory of field independent-dependent individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 469–479.
20.
DehaeneS. (2003) The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 145–147.
21.
DehaeneS.PiazzaM.PinelP., & CohenL. (2003) Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506.
22.
EncarnacionD.Stahl-BellS., & SchmidtM. S. (2001) To count or not to count: that is the instruction. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Georgia Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA, April.
23.
GoodenoughD. R., & KarpS. A. (1961) Field dependence and intellectual functioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 241–246.
24.
GuisandeA. M.PáramoF. M.TinajeroC, & AlmeidaL. S. (2007) Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: an analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema, 19, 527–577.
25.
JonassenD. H, & GrabowskiB. L. (1993) Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
KaufmanE. L.LordM. W.ReeseT. W., & VolkmannJ. (1949) The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology, 62, 498–525.
27.
LambertT. (1981) Effects of structure in pre-instructional strategies on memory for sentences in field dependent individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1063.
28.
LiL. H.ChangF. J., & LiuB. F. (2002) [The influence of primary schoolers' field independent style and field dependent style on the effects of trial teaching and normal teaching]. [Psychological Development and Education], 18,57–61. [in Chinese]
29.
LiS. X. (2006) [Cognitive style theory and its application].Beijing: Central Literature Publishing, [in Chinese]
30.
LiZ. M. (1994) [Cognitive style and research on the relationship between cognitive style and ability of mathematics thinking]. [Psychological Development and Education], 3, 16–20. [in Chinese]
31.
LuoY. J.NanY., & LiH. (2004) Difference of neural correlates between subitizing and counting reflected by ERPs. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 434–441.
32.
MiyakeA.WitzkiA. H., & EmersonM. J. (2001) Field dependence-independence from a working memory perspective: a dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory, 9, 445–457.
33.
MorganH. (1997) Cognitive styles and classroom learning.Westport, CT: Praeger.
34.
NewmanR. S. (1984) Children's numerical estimation: flexibility in the use of counting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 55–64.
35.
ReberR.SchwarzN, & WinkielmanP. (2004) Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.
36.
RichardsonJ. A., & TurnerT. E. (2000) Field dependence revisited: I. Intelligence. Educational Psychology, 20, 255–270.
37.
RidingR. J. (1997) On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29–50.
38.
RittschofK. A. (2010) Field dependence-independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 99–114.
39.
SieglerR. S., & BoothJ. L. (2005) Development of numerical estimation: a review. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition.New York: Psychology Press. Pp. 197–212.
40.
SieglerR. S., & OpferJ. (2003) The development of numerical estimation: evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237–243.
41.
SquiresF. H. (1977) Analysis of sex differences and cognitive styles on science problem-solving situations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State Univer.
42.
SternbergR. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: a triarchic theory of human intelligence.New York: Cambridge Univer. Press.
43.
Van BlerkomM. L. (1985) Cognitive style correlates of mathematical ability among college students. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA, August 23-27.
44.
WangL. J.WangX., & RenM. Z. (2003) Field-dependent-independent cognitive style in solving dynamics problems. Psychological Reports, 92, 867–880.
45.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R., & CoxP. W (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive style and their educational implication. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.
46.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE., & KarpS. A. (1971) A manual for the Embedded Figures Test.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
47.
XuJ. H., & SiJ. W. (2008) [The effect of different distractors on adults' numerical estimation]. [Psychological Science], 31, 195–199. [in Chinese]
48.
ZhangH. CMengQ. M., & ZhengR. C. (1981) [The experimental research of cognitive style: the character of field-dependence influence on learning and figures' aftereffect]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 13, 299–304. [in Chinese]
49.
ZhangL. R (2004) Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability? Validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1295–1311.
50.
ZhangY. X., & SiJ. W. (2007) [The relationship between undergraduates' cognitive style and their ability of computational estimation]. [Journal of Southwest China Normal University (Natural Science)], 32, 168–171. [in Chinese]
51.
ZuoY. R (2005) [The influence of cognitive styles on solving different types of geometric problems]. [Psychological Science], 28, 975–976. [in Chinese]
