Cilt 15, Sayı 2, Sayfalar 117 - 144 2015-02-27

The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction

Omer Faruk SOZCU [1]

171 336

This study examines the relationships between cognitive styles of field dependent learners with their attitudes towards e-learning (distance education) and instructional behavior in e-learning instruction. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the attitude survey (for students’ preferences) towards e-learning instruction as distance education was administered to 157 students enrolled in various distance education programs at Fatih University, in Turkey. The study findings indicated that students’ cognitive style of field dependence was correlated with their attitudes and preferences for students’ roles in e-learning for distance education. Other factors such as a previous background in e-learning, including gender, educational level, use of social networks, and e-learning tools, and preferences for instructional variables and assessment in distance learning processes were also used. Finally, technological, motivational, and instructional-learning variables in learner interface design (LID) for e-learning instruction were correlated with students’ learning outcomes, attitudes, perceptions and preferences in learner interface design (LID) and attitudes toward e-learning instruction. At the end of the study, research questions were tested and instructional variables for distance education were indicated in tables. The findings were then assessed to see if they supported previous research or not and considered to future expectations for distance education and learner interface design (LID) procedures with field dependence learners.
Field dependence, instructional Variables, e-Learning Attitudes, Learner Interface Design Variables.
  • Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: methods and development.
  • (2nd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Allen, M. V. (2003) Michael Allen's Guide to E-Learning: Building Interactive, Fun, and Effective Learning Programs for Any Company. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Allen, M. V. (2006). Creating successful e-learning: A rapid system for getting it right, first time, every time. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  • Allen, M. V. (2007). Designing successful e-learning. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  • Allen, M. V. (2011). Successful e-Learning Interface: Making Learning Technology Polite,
  • Effective and Fun. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Altun, A., & Cakan, M. (2006). Undergraduate students’ academic achievement, field dependent/independent cognitive styles and attitudes towards computers. Educational
  • Technology and Society, 9,1, 289-297. Carmona, C., Castillo, G., & Millan, E. (2007). Discovering student preferences in e- learning. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Applying Data Mining in e-Learning.
  • Chan, L. J. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course. Innovation in
  • Education and Technology International Journal. 46,1, 91-103. Clanton, C.S., & Ralston, S. (1978). Learning Styles: Their Impact on teaching and administration. (AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Report No. 10) Washington, DC: American
  • Association of Higher Education. Dempsey, J. V &. Van Eck, R. N. (2012). E-learning and instructional design, In. R. A.
  • Reiser, R. A. & J. V. Dempsey. (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.(3rd Ed.), (p.281-289).Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Dwyer, F., & Moore, D. M. (1991). Effect of color coding on visually oriented tests with students of different cognitive styles. The Journal of Psychology, 125(6), 677-680.
  • Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (1992). Effect of color coding on visually and verbally oriented and tests with students of different field dependence levels. Journal of
  • Educational Technology Systems, 20(4), 311-320. Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (1994). Effect of color coding and test type (visual/verbal) on students identified as possessing different field dependence levels. Paper presented at the International Visual Literacy Association Annual Meeting, Tempe, AZ.
  • Eislzer, C. F. (1983). Perceptual preferences as an aspect of adolescent learning styles. Education, 103(3), 231-242.
  • Fleming, M. L. (1989). Display and communication. In R. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional
  • Technology Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Goldstein, K. M. & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive Styles: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: Wiley, Inc.
  • Goodenough, D. K. & Witkin, H. A. (1977). Origins of the field-dependent and field- independent cognitive styles. Educational testing services, Princeton, New Jersey, July.
  • (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 150155).
  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior. 5, 155-165.
  • Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education. British
  • Journal of Educational Technology, 17(3), 212-222. Ipek, I. (1995). The Effects of window presentation type and field dependence on learning from a CBI geology tutorial, Dissertations Abstracts International, (University Microfilms No. UMI DAO 72699).
  • Ipek, I. (2001). Bilgisayarla öğretim: Tasarım, geliştirme ve yöntemler (Computer-Based Instruction: Design, development and methods). Tıp-Teknik Kitapcılık Ltd. Sti. Ankara, Turkey.
  • Ipek, I. (2010). The effects of CBI lesson sequence type and field dependence on learning from computer-based cooperative instruction in web, Turkish Online Journal of
  • Educational Technology (TOJET), 9(1), 221-234. Ipek, I. (2011). The Effects of Text Density Levels and the Cognitive Style of Field
  • Dependence on Learning from A CBI Tutorial, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 11(1), pp. 167-182. Jochems, W., Van Merrienboer, J. & Koper, R. (2005). Integrated e-learning: implications for pedagogy, technology and organization, London: Routledge Falmer.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (l989). Functions, applications, and design guidelines for multiple window environments. Computers in Human Behavior. 5, l85-l94. Jung, I. S. (2001). ‘Korea’, In O. Jegede and G. Shive (Eds.), Open and Distance
  • Education in the Asia Pacific Region, Open University of Hong Kong Press, Hong Kong, pp. 103-130. Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning styles: an overview. In Student Learning Styles.
  • Virginia: NASSP Publications, Keefe, J. W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles: An overview. In Student Learning
  • Styles: Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: NASSP. Keller, J. M., & Suziki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and E-learning design: a multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3)229-239.
  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464-481.
  • Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (Fall, 1999). Cognitive styles and distance education, Online Journal of Distance Education Administration, State University of West Georgia, Distance Education, Vol. 2(3).
  • Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in Learning. San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Oh, E., & Lim, D. (2005). Cross relationships between cognitive style and learner variables in online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 53
  • Piskurich, G. M. (2009). Rapid Training Development: Developing Training Courses Fast and Right. San Francisco, CA. Pfeiffer,
  • Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. (3rd Ed.)Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Ruttun, R. (2009). The effects of visual elements and cognitive styles on students’ learning in hypermedia environment. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 4 (12), 893-901.
  • Sealetsa, O. J. & Moalosi, R. (2012). Cognitive and learning styles of the Faculty of
  • Taylor, I. A. (1960). Perception and visual communication. In J. Ball., & F. C. Byrnes.
  • (Eds)., Research Principles and Practices in Visual Communications. DAVI. Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
  • Wang, M. and Shen, R. (2012), Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human cognition and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43: 561–575.
  • Waterhouse, S. (2005). The power of e-learning: The essential guide for teaching in the digital age. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.
  • Witkin, H. A. (1979). Socialization, culture and ecology in the development of group and sex differences in cognitive style. Human Development, 22(5), 358-372.
  • Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: essence and origins, New
  • York: International Universities Press, Inc, 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. Witkin, M. A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded
  • Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Birincil Dil en
Konular
Dergi Bölümü Articles
Yazarlar

Yazar: Omer Faruk SOZCU
E-posta:

Bibtex @ { tojde175952, journal = {Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education}, issn = {1302-6488}, address = {Anadolu Üniversitesi}, year = {2015}, volume = {15}, pages = {117 - 144}, doi = {10.17718/tojde.11039}, title = {The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction}, language = {en}, key = {cite}, author = {SOZCU, Omer Faruk} }
APA SOZCU, O . (2015). The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15 (2), 117-144. DOI: 10.17718/tojde.11039
MLA SOZCU, O . "The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction". Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 15 (2015): 117-144 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/tojde/issue/16892/175952>
Chicago SOZCU, O . "The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction". Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 15 (2015): 117-144
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction AU - Omer Faruk SOZCU Y1 - 2015 PY - 2015 N1 - doi: 10.17718/tojde.11039 DO - 10.17718/tojde.11039 T2 - Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 117 EP - 144 VL - 15 IS - 2 SN - 1302-6488- M3 - doi: 10.17718/tojde.11039 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.11039 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction %A Omer Faruk SOZCU %T The Relationships Between Cognitive Style Of Field Dependence And Learner Variables In E-Learning Instruction %D 2015 %J Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education %P 1302-6488- %V 15 %N 2 %R doi: 10.17718/tojde.11039 %U 10.17718/tojde.11039