Options
Relating spatial ability to cognitive style preferences : perception, processing, and hemisphericity among low achieving students
Author
Yeo, Alan Kong Leong
Supervisor
Seng, Alice Seok-Hoon
Abstract
A recent review of previous studies on cognitive style preferences among students has shown strong relationships between a student's learning style and hemispheric mode preference. This study aims to extend this pool of research by exploring the role of another cognitive variable, spatial visualization. Battista (1992) noted that spatial visualization correlates highly with achievement (r = .30 to .60). This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) Do subjects with High, Average, and Low spatial visualization ability differ in their preferred learning modes (Concrete Experience, Abstract Conceptualization, Reflective Observation, and Active Experimentation)? (2) Do these three groups of spatial visualization ability differ in their perception and processing dimensions? (3) Do these three groups differ in their preferred learning styles (Assimilator, Converger, Accommodator, and Diverger)? (4) What is the relationship between spatial visualization and brain hemisphericity (left, whole, and right brain dominance)? and (5) What is the relationship between learning styles and brain hemisphericity?
Three instruments: Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985), McCarthy's Hemispheric Mode Indicator (1986), and Dailey's Spatial Visualization Test (1965) were administered to 192 students enrolled in a training center in Singapore. Dailey's test is used to categorize the students into High (n = 52), Average (n = 61), and Low (n = 60) spatial visualization ability groups.
Descriptive statistics, chi-squares, and one-way analysis of variance revealed that (1) students who are high, average, and low in spatial visualization ability do not differ significantly in their learning modes and hemispheric preference. The results also indicated that the left, whole and right brain dominant students do not differ significantly in their learning style preferences. The general pattern of results is not consistent with those cited in some earlier reviews (e.g., Springer & Deutsch, 1985; Halpern, 1992). Perhaps spatial visualization ability is too specialized a cognitive variable to suggest a more general application, such as matching teaching styles to students' learning styles. This particular group of students could have a lack of awareness of their own learning styles (metacognition). However, there are more Assimilators in the high and average spatial visualization ability groups compared to the low group, and this does show some similarity with other studies (e.g., Lee, 1995).
It would be premature to conclude that matching learning styles to teaching methods is ineffective in improving school performance for this sample. Several possible explanations are discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed in this study.
Three instruments: Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985), McCarthy's Hemispheric Mode Indicator (1986), and Dailey's Spatial Visualization Test (1965) were administered to 192 students enrolled in a training center in Singapore. Dailey's test is used to categorize the students into High (n = 52), Average (n = 61), and Low (n = 60) spatial visualization ability groups.
Descriptive statistics, chi-squares, and one-way analysis of variance revealed that (1) students who are high, average, and low in spatial visualization ability do not differ significantly in their learning modes and hemispheric preference. The results also indicated that the left, whole and right brain dominant students do not differ significantly in their learning style preferences. The general pattern of results is not consistent with those cited in some earlier reviews (e.g., Springer & Deutsch, 1985; Halpern, 1992). Perhaps spatial visualization ability is too specialized a cognitive variable to suggest a more general application, such as matching teaching styles to students' learning styles. This particular group of students could have a lack of awareness of their own learning styles (metacognition). However, there are more Assimilators in the high and average spatial visualization ability groups compared to the low group, and this does show some similarity with other studies (e.g., Lee, 1995).
It would be premature to conclude that matching learning styles to teaching methods is ineffective in improving school performance for this sample. Several possible explanations are discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed in this study.
Date Issued
1999
Call Number
LB1060 Yeo
Date Submitted
1999