Individual Differences in Learning with Hypermedia: Effects of Students’ Cognitive Styles, Computer Competency Levels, and Prior Knowledge Levels on Learning Strategies

Öz

This study examines the effects of cognitive styles, computer competency levels, and prior domain knowledge levels on students’ learning strategies in an instructional hypermedia program. Sixteen students were selected out of 111 students from a Web-enhanced course, based on their cognitive style, computer competency, and prior domain knowledge test scores. In order to reveal students’ learning strategies, interviews and observations were conducted. Results indicated that cognitive styles may be important in terms of study management strategies of the students, and computer competency and prior knowledge levels may affect the patterns of using the hypermedia program.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• individual differences
• cognitive styles
• learning with hypermedia.

Individual Differences in Learning with Hypermedia: Effects of Students’ Cognitive Styles, Computer Competency Levels, and Prior Knowledge Levels on Learning Strategies

Öz

Hipermedya İle Öğrenmede Kişisel Farklılıklar: Bilişsel Stillerin, Bilgisayar Kullanım Yeterliği ve Ön Alan Bilgisi Düzeylerinin Öğrenme Stratejileri Üzerine Etkisi - Bu çalışma, öğrencilerin, bilişsel stilleri, bilgisayar kullanımı yeterlik düzeyleri ve ön alan bilgilerinin eğitim amaçlı bir hipermedya programındaki öğrenme stratejileri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, Web destekli bir öğrenme ortamındaki 111 öğrenciden 16’sı bilişsel stilleri, bilgisayar kullanımı yeterlik düzeyleri ve ön alan bilgleri baz alınarak seçilmiştir. Öğrencilerin öğrenme stratejilerini ortaya çıkarmak amacıyla yüzyüze görüşme ve gözlem metodları kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, bilişsel stillerin çalışma yönetimi açısından önemli olabileceğini ve bilgisayar kullanımı yeterlik düzeyi ve ön alan bilgisi faktörlerinin de hipermedya programı kullanma örüntülerini etkileyebileceğini göstermiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bireysel farklılıklar
• bilişsel stiller
• hipermedya ile öğrenme.

Kaynakça

1. 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, 1355-1366.
2. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Brusilovsky, P. (2003).Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: the role of student knowledge level and the case for meta-adaptation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 487-497
4. Cakan, M. (2003). Psychometric data on the group embedded figures test for Turkish undergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 993-1004.
5. Chen, S. (2002). A cognitive model for non-linear learning in hypermedia programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 449-460.
6. Chen, S. Y., & Paul, R. J. (2003).Editorial: Individual differences in Web-based instruction- an overview. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 385-392.
7. Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. (2010). Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 379-387.
8. Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011): Mining students' learning patterns and performance in Web-based instruction: a cognitive style approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), 179-192. Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2011). Mining Learning Preferences in Web-based Instruction: Holists vs. Serialists. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 266-277.

9. De Bra, P., Houbent, G., & Wu, H. (1999). AHAM: A Dexter-based Reference Model for Adaptive Hypermedia. Proceedings of ACM Hypertext '99, Darmstadt, Germany, 147-156.
10. Durfresne, A., & Turcotte, S. (1997). Cognitive style and its implications for navigation strategies. In B. Boulay, & R. Mizoguchi, (Ed.), Artifical intelligence in education knowledge and media learning system (pp. 287-293). Kobe, Japan: Amsterdam IOS Press.
11. Felix, U. (2001). A multivariate analysis of students' experience of Web based learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 21-36.
12. Ford, N. (2000). Cognitive styles and virtual environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 543-557.
13. Gauss, B., & Urbas, L. (2003). Individual differences in navigation between sharable content objects- an evaluation study of a learning module protype. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 499-509.
14. Graff, M. (2003). Learning from Web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 407-419
15. Ghinea, G.& Chen, S. Y. (2003). The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 393-407.
16. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D. & Smaldino, S.E. (2002). Instructional media and technologies for learning. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
17. Hölscherl, C., & Strube, G. (2000). Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks , 33(1), 337-346.
18. Jonassen, D.H., & Wang, S. (1993) Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-based Instruction 20 (1), 1–8.
19. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993) Handbook of individual differences, learning & instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
20. Last, D.A., O’Donnell, A.M. & Kelly, A.E. (2001). The effects of prior knowledge and goal strength on the use of hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(1), 3–25. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
21. Leader, L.F., & Klein, J.D. (1996). The effects of search tool type and cognitive style on performance during hypermedia database searches. Educational Technology Research & Development , 44(2), 5-15.
22. Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M. P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
23. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40(1), 18-27.
24. Mcknight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1996) . User-centered design of hypertext/hypermedia for education. Ch 21 in David H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. NewYork: Macmillan.pp. 622 -633.
25. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Montelpare, W.J., & Williams, A. (2000). Web-based learning: Challenges in using the Internet in the undergraduate curriculum. Education and Information Technologies, 5(2), 85-101.
27. Morgan, H. (1997). Cognitive styles and classroom learning. Westport, Conn : Praeger
28. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. Palmquist, R. A. & Kim, K. (2000). Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of Web search performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (6), 558-566.
30. Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Magoulas, G.D., & Kornilakis, H. (2002). Towards new forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of a Web-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 39, 333-360.
31. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
32. Pi-Sui-Hsu, & Dwyer, F. (2004). Effect of level of adjunct questions on achievement of field independent/field dependent learners. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 99
33. Rezende, F., & de Souza Barros, S. (2008). Students’ navigation patterns in the interaction with a mechanics hypermedia program. Computers & Education, 50, 1370-1382.
34. Saracho, O.N. (1997). Teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles in early childhood education. Greenwood Publishing Group: CT, 06881.
35. Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 41, 87
36. Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., Demetriadis, S., & Georgiadou, E. (2004). The value of adaptivity based on cognitive style. An emprical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 95Yildirim, S. & Dusick, D. (1997). Faculty computer use and training: identifying distinct needs for different populations. Community College Review, 27(4), 33-47.
37. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
38. Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). Group Embedded Figures Test Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
39. Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D. (1981) Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. N.Y: International Universities Press.
40. 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, a( 1), l-64.
41. Whipp J.J., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a Web-based course: a case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(4), p5-22.