Do cognitive styles affect learning performance in different computer media?
Abstract
The impact of three treatments Text, CD-ROM, Internet site and student Cognitive Styles on learning performance was investigated. Prior to the commencement of the course the students completed the following psychometric tests: the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) [1], Kirton's Adaptive-Innovator Inventory (KAI) [2] and Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) [3]. The subject matter was an Introductory Course in Artificial Intelligence. Forty-seven final year Information System students participated, randomly assigned within sexes to one of the three treatments. Upon completion of six one-hour sessions they were given a sixty-minute examination to assess overall learning.It was found that only Field Dependence-Field Independence interacted with overall learning performance at a statistically significant level (p 0.001) irrespective of treatment. When the three treatments were investigated separately the results suggest that Verbalisers performed better than Imagers in the Internet treatment, while the Analytics performed better than the Wholists in the CD-ROM treatment. The results of the study are discussed in terms of individual differences (Cognitive Styles) together with implications for Web site design.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attempts to adapt the learning environment to different cognitive styles based on cognitive ability have led to improved learning outcomes.
“Attempts to adapt the learning environment to different cognitive styles, based on factors such as cognitive ability, have been reported to lead to improved learning outcomes [183].”
From Leveraging AI in E-Learning: Personalized Learning and Adaptive Assessment through Cognitive Neuropsychology—A Systematic Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [183]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Halkiopoulos, C., & Gkintoni, E. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13183762 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Demuynck, M.-A., Edwards, D. E., & Zimmermann, W. J. (2024) · doi:10.18260/1-2-620-39999 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Visualization Skills in Engineering Education: Issues, Developments, and Enhancement
Ali, D., Patil, A. S., & Nordin, M. S. B. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0243-4.ch011 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Price, A. (2020) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--430
- Authors
- Parkinson, A., & Redmond, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education - ITiCSE'02
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2002
- OpenAlex
- W4242320148
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
- Keywords
- cognitive style, learning performance, computer-based learning media, CD-ROM, online learning, field dependence-field independence, individual differences, web design, artificial intelligence in education, information systems students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
