DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Students' Field-dependency and Their Mathematical Performance based on Bloom's Cognitive Levels

  • Received : 2009.09.09
  • Accepted : 2011.12.23
  • Published : 2011.12.31

Abstract

Students approach mathematical problem solving in fundamentally different ways, particularly problems requiring conceptual understanding and complicated strategies. The main objective of this study is to compare students' performance with different thinking styles (Field-dependent vs. Field independent) in mathematical problem solving. A sample of 242 high school males and females (17-18 years old) were tested based on the Witkin's cognitive style (Group Embedded Figure Test) and by a math exam designed in accordance with Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive level. The results obtained indicated that the effect of field dependency on student's mathematical performance was significant. Moreover, field-independent (FI) students showed more effective performance than field-dependent (FD) ones in math tasks. Male students with FI styles achieved higher results compared to female students with FD cognitive style. Moreover, FI students experienced few difficulties than FD students in Bloom's Cognitive Levels. The implications of these results emphasize that cognitive predictor variables (FI vs. FD) could be challenging and rather distinctive factor for students' achievement.

Keywords

References

  1. Alamolhodaei, H. (1996). A study in Higher education calculus students' learning styles. Ph. D Thesis. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.
  2. Alamolhodaei, H. (2001). Convergent/Divergent styles and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia 24(2), 102-115.
  3. Alamolhodaei, H. (2002). Students' cognitive style and mathematical problem solving. J. Korea Soc. Math. Educ. Ser. D 6(2), 171-182. ME 2003a.00150
  4. Alamolhodaei, H. (2009a). A Working Memory Model Applied to Mathematical Word Problem Solving. Asia Pacific Education Review 10(1), 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9023-2
  5. Alamolhodaei, H. (2009b). Foundation of Mathematical Education. Tehran, Iran: Jahan Farda Publisher.
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives, the classification of educational goals-Hand book 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mackay Company.
  7. Case, R. (1974). Structures and strictures, some functional limitations on the course of cognitive growth. Cognitive Psychology 6, 544-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90025-5
  8. Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories models and measures. Educational Psychology 24(4), 419-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834
  9. Ekbia, A. (2000). A study of the effectiveness of working memory and cognitive style on mathemat-ical performance of (13-year-old) school boys. M. Sc. Thesis. Tehran, Iran: Tehran Teacher Training University.
  10. Ferrini-Mundy, J. & Lauten, D. (1994). Learning about calculus learning. Math. Teacher 87(2), 115-121. ME 1995c.01650
  11. Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Naeme, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought? International Journal of Science Education 13(2), 187-192. ERIC EJ443645 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130205
  12. Johnstone, A. H.; Hogg, W. R. & Ziane, M. (1993). A working memory model applied to physical problem solving. International Journal of Science Education 15(6), 663-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150604
  13. Leinhardt, G.; Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks Learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research 60(1), 1-64. ME 1991a.37162 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  14. Oltman, P. K.; Raskin, E. & Witkin, H. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
  15. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educa-tional Research 31(7), 3-14. ERIC EJ656757
  16. Price, L (2004). Individual differences in learning: cognitive control, cognitive style and learning style. Educational psychology 24(5), 681-698. ERIC EJ680611 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000262971
  17. Riding, R. J. & Al-Sanabani, S. (1998). The effect of cognitive style, age, gender and structure on the recall of prose passages. International Journal of Education Research 29, 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00023-8
  18. Rizvi, N. F. (2007). A synthesis of taxonomies/frame works used to analyze mathematics curricula in Pakistan. In: D. Kuchenman (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics (BSRLM), Northhampton, UK; 17 November 2007, Vol. 27(3) (pp. 90-95). London: BSRLM. ME 2009f.00231
  19. Rollock, D. (1992). Field-dependence/independence and learning condition—an exploratory study of styles vs. ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills 74, 807-818. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.74.3.807
  20. Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers and Students' Cognitive Style in Early Childhood Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
  21. Saracho, O. N. (1998). Editor's introduction cognitive style research and its relationship to various discip-lines. International Journal of Educational Research 29 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00022-6
  22. Saracho, O. N. (2003). Matching teachers' and students' cognitive styles. Early Child Development and Care 173(2-3), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430303097
  23. Scardamalia, M. (1977). Information Processing capacity and the problem of horizontal "deca-lage": A demonstration using combinatorial reasoning tasks. Child Development 48(1), 28-37.
  24. Skemp, R. R. (1986). The psychology of learning mathematics and edition. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books. ME 1986i.03547
  25. Smith, G.; Wood, L.; Coupland, M. & Stephen, B. (1996). Constructing mathematical examina-tion to assess a range of knowledge and skills. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 21(1), 65-77. ME 1996d.02311
  26. Srivastava, P. (1997). Cognitive style in educational perspective. New Delhi, India: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.
  27. Talbi, M. T. (1990): An information processing approach to the investigation of mathematical problem solving at secondary and university levels. Ph. D. Thesis. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow.
  28. Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field-dependence/independence and academic achievement: a re-examination of their relationship, British Journal of Educational Psychology 67, 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01237.x
  29. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching of mathematics. In: D. Tall (Ed.), Ad-vanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65-81). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Klumer Academic Publ. ME 1993b.02231
  30. Witkin, H. A. (1977). Cognitive style in Personal and Cultural Adaptation. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
  31. Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press.
  32. 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), 1-64. ERIC EJ161385 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001