Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of technology-enhanced constructivist learning on science achievement of students with different cognitive styles

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of technology-enhanced constructivist learning on science achievement of seventh-grade students with different cognitive styles. Cognitive styles of the students are examined within the frame of Witkin et al. (1977) in terms of field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. The quantitative study was conducted using an experimental method with a factorial design that is a modification of the pretest-posttest control group design. The sample of the study consists of 39 seventh-grade students (19 students in the experimental group and 20 students in the control group). Strength and Energy Achievement Test and The Embedded Figures Test (EFT) were used to collect the data. The results of this study show that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean score ranks of experimental and control groups for the pretest and posttest scores of students. Furthermore, there is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the field independent students in both experimental and control groups but there are significant differences between pretest and posttest scores of the field dependent students. Suggestions were presented by the results obtained from the research.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adkins, D., & Guerreiro, M. (2018). Learning styles: Considerations for technology enhanced item design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 574–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, O. R., Love, B. C., & Tsai, M.-J. (2014). Neuroscience perspectives for science and mathematics learning in technology-enhanced learning environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 467–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004). 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. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Field dependence–independence and instructional-design effects on learners’ performance with a computer-modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1355–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin, F. (2015). The relationship between pre-service science teachers’ cognitive styles and their cognitive structures about technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(1), 88–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bahar, M. (2003). The effect of instructional methods on the performance of the students having different cognitive styles. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 24, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, V., & Gan, C. L. (2016). Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3), 808–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Longhurst, M., Duffy, A. M., Wolf, P. G., & Shelton, B. E. (2013). Science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2035–2057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., Zuwallack, R., Longhurst, M., Shelton, B. E., & Wolf, P. G. (2014). An examination of the changes in science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in the context of professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1815–1848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. T., Liou, S., & Chen, L. F. (2019a). The relationships among gender, cognitive styles, learning strategies, and learning performance in the flipped classroom. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 395–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Zhao, S., & Li, W. (2019b). Opinion dynamics model based on cognitive styles: Field-dependence and field-independence. Complexity, 2019, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statisticalpower analysis for the behavioral sciences (2’EU.). HilIsUale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. R. B. (2000). Action research. Research Methods in Education, 5, 226–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. K., & Cochran, K. F. (1990). An information processing view of field dependence-independence. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Special aspects of education, Vol. 12. Cognitive Style and Early Education, (p. 61–78). Gordon and Breach Publishers.

  • Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of test development. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragon, K. (2009). Field dependence and student achievement in technology-based learning: A meta-analysis (pp. 1–123). Alberta: University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, W., Baralt, A., & Dawson, K. (2008). The teach web 2.0 consortium: A tool to promote educational social networking and web 2.0 use among educators. Educational Media International, 45(4), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fırat, E. A., & Köksal, M. S. (2017). The relationship between use of web 2.0 tools by prospective science teachers and their biotechnology literacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 44–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, G. E., & Semrau, L. P. (1998). The effects of learner differences on usage patterns and learning outcomes with hypermedia case studies. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(4), 309–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). Internal validity. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, I., Hepplestone, S., Parkin, H. J., Rodger, H., & Irwin, B. (2016). Pedagogy first: Realising technology-enhanced learning by focusing on teaching practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 993–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, technology and design. Technology-Enhanced Learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages, 2, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25(3), 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, M. A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., & Shoaib, M. (2019). Adaptive gamification in e-learning based on students’ learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments, 27, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, S. C., Hsieh, S. W., Sun, P. C., & Chen, C. M. (2017). To activate English learning: Listen and speak in real life context with an AR featured u-learning system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 176–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Hwang, F. K. (2008). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understandings about seasons: The design of a technology-enhanced learning environment. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. M., Yang, S. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Web 2.0 for interactive e-learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York: Allen & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Wang, S. (1993). The physics tutor: Integrating hypertext and expert systems. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafyulilo, A. C., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2015). Supporting teachers learning through the collaborative design of technology-enhanced science lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(8), 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalz, M., & Specht, M. (2014). Assessing the crossdisciplinarity of technology-enhanced learning with science overlay maps and diversity measures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khamparia, A., & Pandey, B. (2020). Association of learning styles with different e-learning problems: A systematic review and classification. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1303–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoury, A. G. (2013). A Field-independent view of field-independence. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(6), 885–893.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, N., Niederhauser, D. S., Christensen, R., & Shear, L. (2016). A multilevel system of quality technology-enhanced learning and teaching indicators. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Husic, F., Slotta, J., & Tinker, B. (2006). Technology-enhanced learning in science (TELS): Research programs. Educational Technology, 46(3), 54–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. C. (2018). Investigating the impact of cognitive style on multimedia learners’ understanding and visual search patterns: An eye-tracking approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(8), 1053–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Vargas, O., Ibanez-Ibanez, J., & Racines-Prada, O. (2017). Students’ metacognition and cognitive style and their effect on cognitive load and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 145–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marendaz, C. (1985). Global precedence and field dependence: visual routines? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 5, 727–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mefoh, P. C., Nwoke, M. B., Chukwuorji, J. C., & Chijioke, A. O. (2017). Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 25, 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoNE (Ministry of National Education) (2017). Elemantary school (primary and secondary) science curriculum, 3-8th grades. Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, E., & Lim, D. (2005). Cross relationships between cognitive styles and learner variables in online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (4. ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

  • Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text, and talk: Students' perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5), 569–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pithers, R. T. (2002). Cognitive learning style: A review of the field dependent-field independent approach. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54(1), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, L. (2004). Individual differences in learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style, and learning style. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 681–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezeki, R., Sitompul, H., & Situmorang, J. (2020). The effect of learning strategies and cognitive styles on learning outcomes of mathematics after controlling intelligence. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal 3(2), 1151–1163.

  • Rhoads, R., Berdan, J., & Toven-Lindsey, B. (2013). The open courseware movement in higher education: Unmasking power and raising questions about the movement’s democratic potential. Educational Theory, 63(1), 87–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R., & Rayner, S.G. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies.David Fulton Publisher, London.

  • Tascón, L., Boccia, M., Piccardi, L., & Cimadevilla, J. M. (2017). Differences in spatial memory recognition due to cognitive style. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 8, 550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Manual for embedded figures test, children’s embedded figures test, and group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc..

    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), 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey

    Esra Açıkgül Fırat

  2. Department of Special Education, Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Mustafa Serdar Köksal

  3. Ministry of National Education, Bingöl, Turkey

    Alaattin Bahşi

Authors
  1. Esra Açıkgül Fırat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Serdar Köksal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alaattin Bahşi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esra Açıkgül Fırat.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This study was presented as an oral presentation at The Ninth International Congress of Educational Research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fırat, E.A., Köksal, M.S. & Bahşi, A. Effects of technology-enhanced constructivist learning on science achievement of students with different cognitive styles. Educ Inf Technol 26, 3659–3676 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10427-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10427-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation