Style Matching or Ability Building? An Empirical Study on FD Learners' Learning in Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Asynchronous Online Learning Environments
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online September, 2009
Style Matching or Ability Building? An Empirical Study on FD Learners' Learning in Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Asynchronous Online Learning Environments
The present study investigated (1) the impact of cognitive styles on learner performance in well-structured and ill-structured learning, and (2) scaffolding as a cognitive tool to improve learners' cognitive abilities, especially field dependent (FD) learners' ability to thrive in an ill-structured learning environment. Two experiments were conducted with 116 college students recruited from a large research I university in the west of the United States. Experiment 1 (n = 42) employed the group learning strategy to match learners' cognitive styles in asynchronous online learning. The results showed that the style matching strategy failed to yield expected gains in ill-structured asynchronous learning for FD learners. Different from the style-matching strategy, experiment 2 (n = 74) used a scaffolding model proposed by Cazden (1988) to improve FD learners' cognitive abilities in asynchronous online learning. Results indicated that focusing on learners' cognitive abilities proved to be more effective than style-matching strategy for FD learners in both ill-structured and well-structured asynchronous online learning. Implications of the findings were discussed with suggestions for future research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkdemirO.KoszalkaT. (2008). Investigating the relationships among instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1451–1461.
AtesS.CatalogluE. (2007). The effects of students' cognitive styles on conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(2), 167–178.
4.
AtkinsonS. (2004). A comparison of pupil learning and achievement in computer aided learning and traditionally taught situations with special reference to cognitive style and gender issues. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 659–679.
5.
BertholdK.NucklesM.RenklA. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577.
6.
CazdenC. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
7.
ChenS. (2002). A cognitive model for non-linear learning in hypermedia programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 449–460.
8.
ChristensenL. B. (2001). Experimental methodology (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
DaniliE.ReidN. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry, based on two cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22(2), 203–226.
10.
DeSchryverM.SpiroR. (2008). New forms of deep learning on the Web: Meeting the challenge of cognitive load in conditions of unfettered exploration in online multimedia environments. In ZhengR. (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 134–152). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.
11.
DeTureM. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21–38.
12.
EllisA. (2003). Personality type and participation in networked learning environments. Education Media International, 40, 101–114.
13.
EvansC.WaringM. (2008). Trainee teachers' cognitive styles and notions of differentiation. Education & Training, 50(2), 140–154.
14.
FordN. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 241–259.
15.
FordN.ChenS. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22.
16.
GrimleyM.BannerG. (2008). Working memory, cognitive style, and behavioral predictors of GCSE exam success. Educational Psychology, 28(3), 341–351.
17.
HailikariT.NevgiA.KomulainenE. (2008). Academic self-beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in mathematics: A structural model. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 59–71.
18.
HambrickD. Z.PinkJ. E.MeinzE. J. (2008). The roles of ability, personality, and interests in acquiring current events knowledge: A longitudinal study. Intelligence, 36(3), 261–278.
19.
HsuP. S.DwyerF. (2004). Effect of level of adjunct questions on achievement of field independent/field dependent learners. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 99–107.
20.
IkeguluP. R.IkeguluT. N. (1999). The effectiveness of window presentation strategy and cognitive style of field dependence status on learning from mediated instructions. Ruston, LA: Center for Statistical Consulting. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED428758)
21.
JacobsonM. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49.
22.
JacobsonM. (2008). A design framework for educational hypermedia systems: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 5–28.
23.
JacobsonM.ArchodidouA. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 145–199.
24.
JeffriesC.MaederD. W. (2009). The effect of scaffolded vignette instruction on student mastery of subject matter. Teacher Educator, 44(1), 21–39.
25.
JonassenD. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 1, 65–94.
26.
KoroghlanianC. M.BrinkerhoffJ. (2007–2008). Online students' technology skills and attitudes toward online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2), 219–244.
27.
LiuX. J.MagjukaR. J.LeeS. H. (2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students' learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 829–846.
28.
LiuM.ReedW. M. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(4), 419–434.
29.
MacNeilR. (1980). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional style to the learning performance of undergraduate students. Journal of Educational Research, 73(6), 354–359.
30.
MacphersonR.StanovichK. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127.
31.
MillikenJ. (2007). Scaffolding cognitive processes in a marketing curriculum. Higher Education in Europe, 32(2–3), 185–191.
32.
NobleK. (2006). Effect of the NePPHRO program on the learning of students of physiology who exhibit variation in cognitive style. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Temple University, Pennsylvania.
33.
PalincsarA. S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh—A response to C. Addison Stone's “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373.
34.
PaskG. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128–148.
35.
PuntambekarS.HubscherR. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.
36.
Reid-GriffinA.CarterG. (2004). Technology as a tool: Applying an instructional model to teach middle school students to use technology as a mediator of learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 495–504.
37.
RichardsJ. P.FajenB. R.SullivanJ. F.GillespieG. (1997). Signaling, notetaking, and field independence-dependence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 508–517.
38.
RidingR. (2000). Cognitive style analysis—Research administration. Birmingham, UK: Learning and Training Technology.
39.
RidingR.DouglasG. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307.
40.
Sadler-SmithE.SmithP. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals' styles and preferences in flexible learning programs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 395–412.
41.
ShyyanV.ThurlowM.LiuK. (2008). Instructional strategies for improving achievement in reading, mathematics, and science for English language learners with disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(3), 145–155.
42.
SpiroR.FeltovichP.JacobsonM.CoulsonR. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In TuffyT.JonassenD. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
SomyurekS.GuyerT.AtasoyB. (2008). The effects of individual differences on learner's navigation in a courseware [Online Submission]. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED501295)
44.
StoyanovS.KirschnerP. (2007). Effect of problem solving support and cognitive styles on idea generation: Implications for technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 49–63.
45.
van MerrienboerJ. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
46.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
WitkinH. A.GoodenoughD. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 661–689.
48.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A. (1971/2002a). Group Embedded Figures Test (2nd ed.). Menlo Park, CA.: Mind Garden.
49.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A. (1971/2002b). Group Embedded Figures Test: Manual and sample figures and scoring. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
50.
ZhengR.FerrisP. S. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding online instructional modeling: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/IGI Global Publishing.
51.
ZhengR.FlygareJ.DahlL.HoffmanR. (2009). The impact of individual differences on social communication pattern in online learning. In MourlasC.TsianosN.GermanakosP. (Eds.), Cognitive and emotional processes in web-based education: Integrating human factors and personalization (pp. 320–322). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/IGI Global Publishing.
52.
ZhengR.MillerS.SnelbeckerG.CohenI. (2006). Use of multimedia for problem-solving tasks. Journal of Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 3(1–2), 135–143.
53.
ZhengR.YangW.GarciaD.McCaddenB. P. (2008). Effects of multimedia on schema induced analogical reasoning in science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 474–482.
