This study showed that pairing students for computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is efficient and cost-effective. The interactive effects of individual cognitive style on paired/cooperative CAI were also examined. Three different student pairings were analyzed—field independent with field independent, field dependent with field independent, and field dependent with field dependent. A three-group, posttest-only design was utilized. No significant difference existed between the mean posttest scores of participants who worked individually and those who worked in pairs. The manner in which individuals were paired by individual cognitive style also made a significant difference. Groups made up of either two field independent students or a mixed group of one field dependent student and one field independent student significantly outperformed groups made up of two field dependents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnsonR. T.JohnsonD. W., and StanneM. B., Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 6, pp. 668–677, 1985.
2.
DaviesD., Computer-Supported Co-operative Learning Systems: Interactive Group Technologies and Open Learning, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 25: 3, pp. 205–214, 1988.
RowlandP. and StuessyC. L., Matching Mode of CAI to Cognitive Style: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 7: 4, pp. 36–40, 1988.
5.
CarrierC. A. and JonassenD. H., Adapting Courseware to Accommodate Individual Differences, in Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware, JonassenD. H. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 203–226, 1988.
6.
RasinskiT., Cognitive Style and Reading: Implications from Field Dependence Research for Reading Instruction, International Reading Association, Springfield, Illinois, 1983 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 241 899).
7.
BertiniM.PizzamiglioL., and WapnerS. (eds.), Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1986.
8.
WillardM. L., “An Investigation of the Effects of Cooperative Learning and Cognitive Style in Teaching Word Processing Skills to Adults”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1985.
9.
WitkinH. A. and GoodenoughD. R., Field Dependence and Interpersonal Behavior, Psychological Bulletin, 84: 4, pp. 661–689, 1977.
10.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE., and KarpS. A., A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests, Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1971.
11.
CaninoC. and CicchelliT., Cognitive Styles, Computerized Treatments on Mathematics Achievement and Reaction to Treatments, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 3, pp. 253–264, 1988.
12.
RosenbergH. R.MintzS., and ClarkR. E., The Educational Significance of Field Dependence Research, Educational Technology, 17, pp. 43–44, 1977.
13.
CarrierC. A. and SalesG. C., Pair versus Individual Work on the Acquisition of Concepts in a Computer-Based Instructional Lesson, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 14: 1, pp. 11–17, 1987.
14.
GoldschmidB. and GoldschmidM. L., Peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Review, Higher Education, 5: 1, pp. 9–33, 1976.
15.
JohnsonD. W. and JohnsonF. P., Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, (2nd Edition), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982.
16.
JohnsonD. W.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR., and NelsonD., Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 89: 1, pp. 47–62, 1981.
17.
GoodenoughD. R., The Role of Individual Differences in Field Dependence as a Factor in Learning and Memory, Psychological Bulletin, 83: 4, pp. 676–694, 1976.
18.
OltmanP. K.GoodenoughD. R.WitkinH. A.FreedmanN., and FreidmanF.. Psychological Differentiation as a Factor of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 4, pp. 730–736, 1975.
19.
CheneyP., Cognitive Style and Student Programming Ability: An Investigation, Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 13: 4, pp. 285–291, 1980.
20.
PostP. E., The Effect of Field Independence/Field Dependence on Computer-Assisted Instruction Achievement, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 25: 1, pp. 60–67, 1987.
21.
MacGregorS. K.ShapiroJ. Z., and NiemiecR., Effects of a Computer-Augmented Learning Environment on Math Achievement for Students with Differing Cognitive Style, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 4, pp. 453–465, 1988.
22.
HooperS. and HannafinM. J., Cooperative CBI: The Effects of Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Grouping in the Learning of Progressively Complex Concepts, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4: 4, pp. 413–424, 1988.
23.
LemosR. S., The Effectiveness of Teams in Teaching COBOL Programming: An Empirical Study, The Journal of Experimental Education, 47: 3, pp. 196–200, 1979.
24.
LemosR. S., The Cost-Effectiveness of Team Debugging in Teaching Cobol Programming, SIGCSE Bulletin, 10: 3, pp. 16–22, 1978.
25.
MevarechZ. R.SternD., and LevitaI., To Cooperate or Not Cooperate in CAI: That Is the Question, Journal of Educational Research, 80: 3, pp. 164–167, 1987.
26.
WitkinH. A.LewisH. B.HertzmanM.MacHoverK.MeissnerBretnall P., and WapnerS., Personality Through Perception, Harper and Brothers, New York, 1954.
27.
WitkinH. A., Socialization, Culture, and Ecology in the Development of Group and Sex Differences in Cognitive Style, Human Development, 22, pp. 358–372, 1979.
28.
WitkinH. A. and GoodenoughD. R., Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins, Psychological Issues Monograph 51, International Press, New York, 1981.
