THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL MODES ON STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLES

Seong-Chong Toh Center for Educational Technology and Media, University of Science Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia e-mail: tohsc@usm.my

ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects on achievement and motivation of different instructional modes and cognitive styles (field independence and field dependence) in computer-based instruction. The four modes were - Mode 1 (Instruction with graphics, sound and bullet text); Mode 2 (Instruction with graphics, plain text but without sound), Mode 3 (Instruction with sound, bullet text but without graphics) and Mode 4 (Instruction with plain text only). Subjects were 333 students from six Malaysian schools. It was found that there were significant differences in gain scores amongst students from the different instructional modes with students in mode 1 obtaining the highest score. The study found no significant differences in gain scores between field dependent and field independent students. Furthermore, it was found that there were significant difference in motivation between students from the four modes with students in Mode 1 obtaining the highest score.

INTRODUCTION
Designers of computer-based instruction courseware, often assume that graphics, sound and other non-textual representation almost always play a useful and even necessary role in the development of courseware, and, by inference, the acquisition of knowledge and skills. However, in reviewing the educational, psychological and human factors literatures, there is scant evidence to support this view [Friedman 1993] . Most guidelines for constructing non-textual materials are based on the largely intuitive (an uncritical) assumptions that (a) pictures are good, (b) more pictures are better, and (c) realistic pictures are best all [Dwyer 1972]; [Friedman 1979]. Is this true? Almost all of these reasons are too broadly stated and all can be questioned on empirical grounds. Several other factors are likely to influence learning from computer-based instruction. Previous research has indicated that students' prior achievement, cognitive styles, locus of control, motivation, gender difference are all contributing factors to a student's performance with computer-based instruction. Individual traits of field independence and field dependence so seem to influence the effectiveness of computer-based instruction [Kern and Matta 1988]. While the field independent students generally rely upon internal referents for support in developing a learning strategy, the dependent students must rely upon external referents or guidance in developing learning strategies [Witkin et al, 1977]. In other words, one essential difference between a field independent and a field dependent person is the level of guidance needed by the learner, especially by field dependent students.

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
Given the research concerns discussed in the preceding sections, the purpose of this research was to investigate the effects on achievement and motivation of the courseware on students of different cognitive styles (Field Independence and Field Dependence). This study attempted to find an optimal type of instructional strategy based upon the students' achievement and motivation. Research questions addressed in this study were:(1) (2) (3) Did the different modes of courseware influence student performance? Was there a significant interaction effect between the different modes of courseware and the cognitive style of the student? Did the different modes of courseware influence student motivation to learn from the courseware?

METHOD AND DESIGN DESCRIPTION OF THE COURSEWARE CREATED USING THE AUTHORING TOOL TOH/ABDUL RAHIM (TAR)

The courseware entitled "Our Solar System" was created using an Authoring Tool Toh/Abdul Rahim (TAR) which was developed by the author himself using the concept of Object-Oriented Programming. Classes of objects were created which consists of text, graphics, sound, animation and navigational buttons. It had a motivation opening screen to arouse learner's interest; a main menu, and sub-menu with navigation buttons. Simulations were inserted in the courseware as and when required. It had also formative evaluation question and dynamic database comparison.

DESIGN
The basic quasi-experimental design was 4 (Mode of Instruction - Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3, Mode 4) x 2 (field independence and field dependence). 333 students from six Penang schools were randomly assigned to one of the experimental treatments. The treatment effects on achievement and motivation of the students were analyzed using ANCOVA.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
The independent variables in this study were: (a) mode of instruction and (b) types of cognitive styles. The mode of instruction was considered to be treatment variable and was classified into four modes namely Mode 1 (Instruction with graphics, sound and bullet text), Mode 2 (Instruction with graphics, plain text but no sound), Mode 3 (Instruction with sound, bullet text but without graphics) and Mode 4 (Instruction with only plain text). The cognitive variables included two different types which were field independence and field dependence.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES
There were two dependent variables for this study. The first dependent variable was the gain score of the students which was the posttest score minus the pretest score. The second variable was the motivation level of the students as measured by the Keller Instructional Materials Motivation Survey.

SUBJECTS
The subjects in this study were 333 form one students from six Penang schools. For each school, two intact classes were chosen. Within each class students were randomly assigned into one of the instructional modes. There were 194 males and 129 females in this study.

TREATMENT
The subjects were randomly assigned into any one of the four instructional modes. Instruction with graphics meant instruction with graphics displayed on the top left hand corner of each computer screen. The graphic display could be either static or animated graphics. Sound in this context meant when the text was displayed there would be an accompanying sound to highlight the text displayed. Bullet-text meant that the text was displayed word by word with key-words highlighted by color change. Plan text meant text would be displayed on a screen to screen basis.

MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
There were five instruments used in this study. There were the pretest questions, the posttest questions, the Cattell "Culture Fair" Intelligence Test, the Keller Instructional Materials Motivation Survey and the Group Embedded Figures Test. The pretest and posttest questions consisted of twenty multiple choice questions which were developed to determine student understand of important concepts related to the Solar System. An item analysis was carried out on the results of the testing and employed three types of information - item difficulties, discrimination indices and pattern of responses to the various distracters - to improve the test. Content validity of the twenty item test was established by five science specialists who designed the instrument. Reliability of the test was estimated by using the Cronbach Alpha procedure. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.87 showing that the test instrument was satisfactorily reliable. The Cattell "Culture Fair" Intelligence test was administered to all the students in this study to see whether randomness was achieved in the assignment of the subjects to the four treatment groups. The Keller Instructional Materials Motivation Scale [Keller 1987] is a 35 item, Likert-type instrument, which was developed to measure the presence or absence of the motivational components of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction in instructional materials. The validity of the instrument has been established by a study by [Keller, Subhiyah and Price 1989]. The internal consistency reliability of the instrument is 0.89. The instrument was translated into Malay language by the researchers and tested. The internal consistency reliability coefficient was 0.81. The Group Embedded Figures Test is a group administered test to measure the disembedding dimension of field dependence-independence). It involves disembedding 18 simple figures from a complex pattern or field. The reliability of the test was 0.82. The GEFT average was 12 and 10.8 for males and females, respectively [Witkin, Oltman, Raskin and Karp 1971].

PROCEDURE

The treatment was administered by four instructors aided by two assistant researchers. All of them received instructions from the researchers on the experimental procedures prior to the data collection. Prior to the treatment the students were given the pretest, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Cattell "Culture Fair" Intelligence Test. The instructors and their assistants were informed that the purpose of the data collection was for improvement of the student learning performance The post-test were administered immediately after the treatment to measure the achievement of the students. This was followed by the Keller Instructional Materials Motivation Survey to evaluate their preference for the treatment.

RESULTS
The first question being studied was to see whether that was any significance differences in learning gain amongst the various instructional modes. This was put in the following null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1:

There will be no significant differences in learning gains between the different types instructional modes.

An ANCOVA analysis [Table 1] revealed that the gain scores between the various instructional modes were significant, (F, (1, 333) = 3.600, p < 0.05). Source of Variation IQ Mode GEFT MODE x GEFT DF 1 3 1 3 Mean Square 0.587 17.131 18.199 4.562 F 0.333 3.600 * 3.824 0.959

[Table 1] : ANCOVA OF GAIN SCORE BY INSTRUCTIONAL MODE, COGNITIVE STYLE WITH I.Q AS COVARIATE

A t-test [Table 2 ] was carried out to compare the gain scores of the various instructional modes. In comparing the means of the gain score of students exposed to different modes of instruction, it was found that significant differences exist between Mode 1 and Mode 4 (p < 0.05), between Mode 1 and Mode 3. (p < 0.05). Since significant differences in learning gain existed between some of the instructional modes hence the null hypothesis was rejected. GAIN Mean 5.3448 4.7284 5.3448 4.5909 5.3448 4.1818 4.7284 4.5909 4.7284 4.1818 4.5909 4.1818 SCORE s. d. 2.292 2.062 2.292 2.267 2.292 2.095 2.062 2.267 2.062 2.095 2.267 2.095

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 3 Mode 4

N 87 81 87 88 87 77 81 88 81 77 88 77

t value 1.83 2.19 * 3.38 * 0.41 1.65 1.20

d. o. f 166 173 162 167 156 163

[Table 2] : T-TEST GROUPS OF THE GAIN SCORES FOR STUDENTS IN THE VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL MODES The second question being studied was to see whether that was any significance interaction effect between the different modes of courseware and the cognitive style of the student? This was put in the following null hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2:

There will be no significant interaction effect in learning gains between the types of instructional modes and students' cognitive styles.

A three-way ANCOVA of the gain scores [Table 1] revealed that there no significant differences in gain scores between the field dependent and field independent students. Thus results of the data analysis did not reject the null hypothesis. The third question in the study designed to measure the motivation reaction of the students in the various instructional modes. It was formulated in the following null hypothesis:-

Hypothesis 3:

There will be no significant difference in the motivation reaction between the types of instructional modes as indicated by their responses on the Instructional Materials Motivation Scale (IMMS).

Date analysis from the means and standard deviation of motivation reaction of the students [Table 3] showed that there were some fluctuations in the motivation reactions with the students in Mode 1 obtained the highest motivation reaction scale. Mean 140.60 134.85 134.09 130.71 1 2 3 4 = = = = s. d. 16.88 12.92 14.51 18.58 N 87 81 88 77

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode Mode Mode Mode

Graphics, Sound and Bullet-text Graphics, No Sound and Plain-text No Graphics, Sound and Bullet-text Control experiment - Only Plain-text

[Table 3] : MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF MOTIVATION SCORES OF THE VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONAL MODES

A three-way ANCOVA [Table 4] revealed that there were significant differences by mode, F,(1, 333) = 5.749, p < 0.05 and hence the null hypothesis was rejected. Students exposed to an instructional mode 1 (Graphics, sound and bullet-text) obtained significantly higher motivation reaction compared to other instructional modes.

Source of Variation Mode GEFT MODE x GEFT

Sum of Squares 4350.573 492.797 295.760

DF 3 1 3

Mean Square 1450.191 492.797 98.587

F 5.749 * 1.954 .391

[Table 4] : ANCOVA OF MOTIVATION REACTION BY INSTRUCTIONAL MODE, AND COGNITIVE STYLE WITH I.Q AS COVARIATE AS INDICATED BY THE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS MOTIVATION SCALE (IMMS)

DISCUSSION
There were several possible explanations for the results found in this study. The following sections present these reasons. Hypothesis 1 was proposed to find the relationship between in learning gains between the different types instructional modes. The result revealed that enhanced instructional mode on a computer based learning environment with graphics, sound and enhanced text had significant effect on the learning gains. This finding is consistent with studies by [Toh 1991] , [Hannafin and Hopper 1989] , [Dwyer 1978], and [Galitz 1981]. In Hannafin and Hopper's (1989) study, five functions of screen displays were identified: focusing attention, developing and maintaining interest, promoting deep processing, promoting engagement and facilitating navigation through the lesson. In Galitz's (1981) study, users were interviewed to determine desirable screen characteristics and desired screen characteristics identified include (a) an orderly, clean uncluttered appearance, (b) an obvious indication of what is being showed and what should be done with it; (c) information located where expected; (d) a clear indication of relationship between information on the screen; (d) a clear indication of options; (e) a clear indication of when an action could make a permanent change in operation. In Toh's (1991) study, 389 students from 6 Malaysian schools, were either exposed to computer simulated experiments or hands-on laboratory experiments. It was found that students in the computer-simulated experiments group obtained significantly better gain scores compared to the "hands-on" laboratory group. Thus we can safely generalize that instructions through computer if properly chosen and appropriately presented, can add substantially to learning. The results of Hypothesis 2 showed that there were differences in learning gains between field dependent and field independent students using the various modes of instructions. Field independent students generally obtained higher learning gains in all the four modes of instruction. The findings also support the argument that field dependent students are provided with an enhanced mode of instruction, their achievement tend to improve. Although the differences in learning gains in this study had not reach the level of significance, the results clearly show that there interaction between the cognitive style and the type of instructional treatment. This finding confirmed previous research that there were correlations of general ability and field dependence-independence with achievement [Ng 1981]; [Burwell 1991]. An alternative explanation for the

performance differences noted by [Dwyer and Moore 1992] was the possibility that the field dependent subjects might have lower academic potential than the field independent students. The assumption of Hypothesis 3 was that there will be significant interaction effect in motivation between the types of instructional modes. The results of this study revealed that significant differences exist in students' motivation from the various instructional modes. Students from the enhanced mode of instruction showed the highest level of motivation. This study is consistent with studies by [Abdul Rahim 1990]. A possible explanation for this finding is that according to [Keller (1987], motivation to learn is affected by personal factors (attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction) and environmental factors (such as the instructional mode). The environment inputs can mitigate personal input inadequacies in the learner's motivational status. Instructional conditions that capitalize on the preferences of the field dependent students and challenge field independent students are more likely to enhance learning. These include offering deliberate instructional support with salient cues, especially organizational cues such as advanced organizers; providing clear, explicit direction and the maximum amount of guidance; providing extensive feedback; advising learner instructional support needed (examples, practice items, tools) and embedding questions throughout learning and providing deductive and procedural instructional sequence.

CONCLUSIONS
The information provided from the results of the study has several implications for the instructional designer. Firstly it reinforces the notion that graphics and sound assist comprehension by helping the learning in organizing and chunking information. They provide information in a different mode than verbal text and as such afford an alternative mode for learning. Visual can supplement verbal information as well as present information that is difficult, if not impossible to present verbally. Secondly, it shows that computer-based instruction is a viable means for individualizing instruction when taking into consideration the many characteristics of the learner. Thirdly, it demonstrates that all learners do not approach the learning situation in the same way and that learners process their own learning in a variety of different ways. Further replication of this study is recommended to explore the findings described here, specifically in relation to interaction between cognitive effects, motivation and cognitive styles of users across different population and with larger sample sizes.

REFERENCES
[Abdul Rahim 1990] Abdul Rahim, Mohd Saad (1990). The effects of textual display and time on the learning of text materials containing adjunct questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee. [Burwell 1991] Burwell, L. B. (1991). The Interaction of Learning Styles with Learner Control Treatments in an Interactive Videodisk Lesson, Educational Technology, 31: 3, pp. 37 - 43. [Dwyer 1972] Dwyer, F. M. (1972). A guide for improving visualized instruction. State College, PA: Learning Services. [[Dwyer 1978] Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College. PA: Learning Services. [Dwyer and Moore 1992] Dwyer, F. M., and Moore, D. M. (1992). Effect of Color Coding on Visually and Verbally Oriented Tests with Students of Different Field Dependent Levels. Journal of Education Technology Systems. 20:4. pp. 311-322. [Friedman 1979] Friedman, A. (1979). Framing pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 316-355. [Friedman 1993] Friedman, A. (1993). Designing graphics to support mental models. In Spector, J., Polson, M., & Muriada, D. (Eds), Automating instructional design: Concepts and Issues. Educational Technology Publications, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [Galitz 1981] Galitz, W. O. (1981). Handbook of screen format design. Wellesley, M A: QED Information Science. [Hannafin and Hopper 1989] Hannafin, M. J., & Hopper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behaviour,5,155 - 165. [Keller, Subhiyah and Price 1989] Keller, J.M., Subhiyah, R. G., & Price, C. B. (1989). Development of a measure of the */motivational properties of instructional materials. Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Department of Educational Research, Tallahassee. [Keller 1987] Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of ARCS Model of instruction design, Journal of Instructional Development, 10:3, p. 2 - 10.

[Kern and Matta 1988] Kern, G. M., & Matta, K. F. (1988). The influence of personality on self-paced instruction. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 15:3, pp. 104- 108. [Ng 1981] Ng, W. K. (1981). The interactive effect of general ability, field dependence-independence and anxiety with redundant on achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. treatment [Toh 1991] Toh, S. C. (1991). A comparison of the effectiveness of computer-simulated experiments with hands-on laboratory in the learning of volume displacement concepts. Unpublished Masters Degree Thesis. Universiti Sains Malaysia. experiments [Witkin, Oltman, Raskin and Karp 1971] Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A (1971). A manual for the embedded figure tests. Palto Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. [Witkin et al, 1977] Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence revisited (RB-77-16). Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, December, 1977.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants from the University of Science Malaysia. This author wish to thank Professor Abdul Rahim bin Mohd Saad, a member of this research team, for his invaluable contribution and encouragement.