The objective of this study was to investigate the possible interactions of aptitude and treatment between (a) two teaching strategies and the cognitive styles of field-dependence and field-independence and (b) two modes of evaluation and the same cognitive styles. Subjects high on the cognitive style scale scored higher on all the posttests. However, no interactions of treatment and cognitive style were found. A significant interaction of sex and treatment occurred on measures of affect and motivation. It shows that female subjects preferred the passive-responding treatment over the active-responding treatment. They worked harder on their preferred treatment and also reached significantly higher performance scores. The exact opposite was true for the males who preferred, worked harder, and obtained higher performance scores with the active-responding treatment. The expected interaction between the cognitive styles and the modes of evaluation was not observed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BienE. C.The relationship of cognitive style and structured arithmetic materials to performance in fourth grade arithmetic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Pennsylvania, 1974.
2.
BigelowG. S.Global versus analytical cognitive style in children as a function of age, sex and intelligence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young Univer., 1967.
3.
BlackE.Cognitive style: Its relationship to school success, IQ, and its stability over time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham Univer., 1977.
4.
BrovermanD. M.KlaiberE. L.KabayashiT.VogelW.Roles of activation and inhibition in sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 23–50.
5.
CaseR.Gearing the demands of instruction to the developmental capacities of the learner. Review of Educational Research, 1975, 45, 59–87.
6.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E.Aptitudes and instructional methods: Handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington, 1977.
7.
DavisJ. K.KlausmeierH. J.Cognitive style and concept identification as a function of complexity and training procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 423–430.
8.
DicksteinL. S.Field independence in concept attainment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 635–642.
9.
EdwardsB. A.The effect upon comprehension of the presence and type of cognitive organizer and the syntactic structure of recall questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of South Florida, 1976.
10.
ElliotC. A.The effects of instructional designs matched to individual differences in cognitive styles on concept learning: A trait-treatment interaction study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April, 1976.
11.
FinnJ. D.Multivariance. Chicago: National Educational Resources, 1972.
12.
FinnJ. D.A general model for multivariate analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.
13.
FisherC. W.FilbyN. N.MarlianeR. S.Instructional time and student achievement in second grade reading and mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April, 1977.
14.
FrederickW. C.Information processing and concept learning at grade six, eight, and ten as a function of cognitive style. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Wisconsin, 1967.
15.
GardnerR. W.LongR. I.Field-articulation in recall. Psychological Record, 1961, 11, 305–310.
16.
GoodenoughD. R.The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 675–694.
17.
GoodenoughD. R.KarpS. A.Field independence and intellectual functioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 241–246.
18.
GrieveT. D.DavisK.The relationship of cognitive style and method of instruction to performance in ninth grade geography. Journal of Educational Research, 1971, 65, 137–141.
19.
HuckS. W.CormierW. H.BoundsW. G.Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
20.
KaganJ.RosmanB. L.DayD.AlbertJ.PhillipsW.Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitude. Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78, No. 1 (Whole No. 578).
21.
KarpS. A.Field dependence and overcoming embeddedness. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 294–302.
22.
MaccobyE. E.Possible causal factor of sex differences in intellectual abilities. In PatricksC. L.RobertS. S. (Eds.), Sex differences, cultural and developmental dimensions. New York: Urizen Book, 1976. Pp. 445–462.
23.
MartensK. (Ed.) Critical questions; a report of the projects utilizing a cognitive style information processing in New York State Two-Year Colleges. Two-year College Development Project, State Univer. of New York, 1976.
24.
McGuinessD.Sex differences in the organization of perception and cognition. In LloydB.ArcherJ. (Eds.), Exploring sex differences. London: Academic Press, 1976. Pp. 123–156.
25.
MessickS.The criterion problem in the evaluation of instruction: Assessing possible not just intended outcomes. In WittrockM. C.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The evaluation of instruction: Issues and problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970. Pp. 183–201.
26.
NebelkopfE. B.DryerA. S.Continuous-discontinuous concept attainment as a function of individual differences in cognitive style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 655–662.
27.
NelsonB. A.Effects of the analytic-global and reflectivity-impulsivity cognitive styles on the acquisition of geometry concepts presented through emphasis or no emphasis and discovery or expository lessons. Technical Report No. 234, Univer. of Madison, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, 1972.
28.
PosnerM. I.Cognition: An introduction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1973.
29.
SilvermanJ.Attentional styles and the study of sex differences. In MostofskyD. I. (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Pp. 61–98.
30.
WitkinH. A.DykR. B.FatersonH. F.GoodenoughD. R.KarpS. A.Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, 1974. (Originally published by Wiley, New York, 1962)
31.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A.A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.
