Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sixty-five undergraduates were classified into field-dependent, field-mixed, and field-independent learners, and were randomly assigned to two groups: text-only and text-and-visual. Participants in the text-only group received a description of a model in textual format, whereas participants in the other group received the same description in textual-and-visual format. Participants were then asked to individually explore a computer model, test hypotheses, and solve a problem related to immigration policies. Their problem-solving performance was analyzed using a 3×2 analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results showed that the text-and-visual group outperformed the text-only group, that performance was significantly related to field-dependence-independence, and that there was a significant interaction effect. Specifically, field-independent learners in the text-and-visual group outperformed field-dependent and field-mixed learners in both groups, and field-independent learners in the text-only group. The findings indicate that adding visuals to textual explanations can enhance understanding, and that the functional role of visuals depends on cognitive differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2001).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruer, J.T. (1993).Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canelos, J., Taylor, W.D., & Gates, R.B. (1980). The effects of three levels of visual stimulus complexity on the information processing of field-dependents and field-independents when acquiring information for performance on three types of instructional objectives.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinien, C.A., & Boutin, F. (1992/1993). Cognitive style FD/I: An important learner characteristic for educational technologies.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 21(4), 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education.Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J., & Snow, R.E. (1981).Aptitudes and instructional methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalal, K.P., & Kasper, G.M. (1994). The design of joint cognitive systems: effect of cognitive coupling on performance.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 677–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependence-independence. In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.),Field dependence-independence: cognitive styles across the lifespan (pp. 149–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style.Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A new look at an old controversy.Review of Educational Research, 62, 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitter, M.J., & Sime, M.E. (1980). Responsibility and shared decision making. In A.T. Smith and T.R.G. Green (Eds.),Human Interaction with Computers (pp. 32–60). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J.W., Ekstrom, R.B., & Price, L.A. (1963).Kit of reference tests for cognitive skills. Princeton: Educational Testing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, L., & Mackey, M. (1988).From clocks to chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M.L. (1984).Meta-analysis in social research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S.A. (1961). Field dependence and intellectual functioning.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, A.A., & McClung, C. (1979). Interaction between attention directing and cognitive style.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 27(2), 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haken, H. (1981).Chaos and order in nature. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1996). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students.Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 233–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L. (1993).Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., & Land, S.M. (2000).Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y. (2002). CILT2002: Visualization and modeling.Journal of Science and Technology Education, 13, 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., & Kealy, W.A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(4), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, T. (1981). Effects of structure in preinstructional strategies on memory for sentences in field-dependent individuals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California),Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., & Reed, W.M. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment.Computers in Human Behavior, 10(4), 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons-Lawrence, C.L. (1994). Effect of learning style on performance in using computer-based instruction in office systems.The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, XXXVI(3), 166–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (Ed.). (1976).Individuality in learning: Implications of cognitive styles and creativity for human development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, J.S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Model-It: A design retrospective. In M.J. Jacobson & R.B. Kozma (Eds.),Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffat, S.D., Hampson, E., & Hatzipantelis, M. (1998). Navigation in a “virtual” maze: Sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans.Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, H. (1997).Cognitive styles and classroom learning. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2000).The condition of education 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2000)Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000. Available at: http://www.oecd.org.

  • Paivio, A. (1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner, D.E. (2000/2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modeling.Review of Research in Education, 25, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiff, J. (1996). At-risk middle level students or field dependent learners.Clearing House, 69(4), 231–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990).Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1994).Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., Cogan, L.S., Jakwerth, P.M., & Houang, R.T. (1999).Facing the consequences: Using TIMMS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays.Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, S. (2002).Science for the children? Report from the Science and Scientists project. Oslo, Norway: Acta Didactica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R.E. (1976). Aptitude-treatment interactions and individualized alternatives in higher education. In S. Messick (Ed.),Individuality in learning: Implications of cognitive styles and creativity for human development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2003).Psychology applied to teaching (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratford, S.J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Secondary students' dynamic modeling processes: Analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems.Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(3), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, R.K. (1982). An investigation of the relationship(s) between selected instructional strategies and identified field dependent and field independent cognitive styles as evidence among high school students enrolled in studies of nutrition (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University),Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, H.G., Repman, J., & Rooze, G.E. (1994). The relationship of learning, behavior, and cognitive style in hypermedia based instruction: Implications for the design of HBI.Computers in the Schools, 10(3/4), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, R.R. (1995). ANOVA: A paradigm for lower and misleading measures of effect sizes?Review of Educational Research, 65, 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971).A manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications.Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehavi, N. (1995). Integrating software development with research and teacher education.Computers in the Schools, 11(3), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education at the University of Cyprus, Cyprus

    Charoula Angeli & Nicos Valanides

Authors
  1. Charoula Angeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicos Valanides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Angeli, C., Valanides, N. Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. ETR&D 52, 23–36 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504715

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504715

Keywords

Search

Navigation