Ford N. and Chen S.Y. (2001) Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology,32 (1),5-22. 指導教授 : 陳明溥 學生 : 張庭禎

摘要 The research project that explored the relationship between matching and mismatching instructional presentation style (breadth-first and depth-first) with students’ cognitive style (field- dependence/-independence) in a computer- based learning environment Performance in matched conditions was significantly superior to that in mismatched conditions.

摘要 Significant effects were found for gender, matching mainly affecting male students. The findings provide support for the notion that matching and mismatching can have significant effects on learning outcomes

文獻探討 There is empirical research evidence (eg, Entwistle, 1981; Ford, 1985, 1995; Pask, 1976, 1979; Schmeck, 1988; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox, 1977) which suggests that: (Matching cognitive and learning styles with instructional presentation strategies) –different individuals seek and process information using very different strategies –that learning in matched conditions, in which instructional strategy is matched with students’ learning styles, may in certain contexts be significantly more effective than learning in mismatched conditions.

文獻探討 Witkin’s cognitive styles –The dimensions of cognitive style identified by Witkin are most generally termed Field- dependence and Field-independence. –Field-independent individuals are more adept at structuring and analytic activity relative to relatively Field-dependent individuals –Relatively Field-dependent individuals thrive more in situations where learning is structured and analysed for them

文獻探討 Pask’s learning styles and strategies –Pask and his colleagues monitored the routes taken by learners who used one of two basic approaches. –“Holists” tended to adopt a global approach to learning, examining interrelationships between several topics early in the learning process, and concentrating first on building a broad conceptual overview into which detail could subsequently be fitted. –“Serialists” tended to use a predominantly local learning approach, examining one thing at a time, and concentrating on separate topics and the logical sequences linking them.

Method Aim –This study aimed to determine whether matching and mismatching Breadth-first and Depth-first information presentation styles with students’ levels of Field-dependence/- independence had any effects on learning outcomes.

Breadth-first and Depth-first

Research instruments Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) was used to measure Field-dependence/-independence. Learning materials –Two versions were designed of a learning package to teach basic HTML. Personal Survey –Data was also collected on each person’s gender, age, department and course. –Students indicated their existing levels of knowledge, using a 5-point Likert scale, of authoring World Wide Web (Web) pages. Pre- and Post-tests

Analysis of results Learning Outcomes: –Gain Score => (Post-test - Pre-test) in order to ascertain how much knowledge had been gained as a result of the experiment. Task Performance: –by summing scores for items successfully completed, the relevant variable being named: Task score. –Task Gain—consisting of Task Score minus Prior experience of creating Web pages

Analysis of results Table 1. shows significant links between Gain Score and Matching, and between Gain Score and an interaction of Matching with Gender.

Analysis of results Table 2 indicates that the mean Gain Scores for students working in matched conditions was significantly higher than those for students working in mismatched conditions.

Analysis of results The effects of matching/mismatching were significant only in relation to the male sample.

Analysis of results Table 5 shows T-test results for male and female students in matched conditions, and the corresponding analysis for mismatched conditions. Gender differences were significant only in relation to the matched sample.

Analysis of results Gain Score by matched and mismatched students when working with Breadth-first, Depth-first learning materials. No significant differences were found in the case of Task Gain

Analysis of results the results showed that males outperformed females significantly in Task Gain when learning in Breadth-first conditions. Gender differences thus had effects only in Breadth-first conditions (Table 10).

Discussion and conclusions When students learned in matched conditions (ie, Field-dependent individuals using Breadth-first teaching materials, and Field-independent students using Depth-first materials) they scored significantly higher on Gain Score Males out-performed females in matched conditions but this significant difference disappeared in mismatched conditions. There was an overall significant difference in Gain Score for males and females, males scoring more highly than females.

Discussion and conclusions Differences in Task Gain—the measure of performance on the practical task—did not differ significantly according to matched or mismatched conditions. However, scores did differ according to gender— but only in the case of individuals who learned using the Breadth-first learning materials, males outperforming females.

Discussion and conclusions the study raises a number of questions. –the role of gender in the interactions between matching/mismatching and conceptual knowledge acquisition, and between instructional presentation style and performance on the practical task, is far from clear and requires further investigation.