Browse > Article

Relationships Between Student Cognitive . Affective Characteristics and Conceptual Understanding from Individual CAl for Science Learning  

Noh, Tae-Hee (Seoul National University)
Kim, Kyung-Sun (Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.25, no.7, 2005 , pp. 728-735 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this study, relationships between student the cognitive affective characteristics and conceptual understanding from individual computer-assisted instruction were investigated. Tests regarding field dependence-independence, learning strategy, self-regulated ability, visual learning preference, goal orientation, self-efficacy on ability, and computer attitude were administered. After having been taught by means of a CAl program, a conception test on molecular motion was administered. It was found that student conceptual understanding was significantly related to field independence, learning strategy, self-regulated ability among the cognitive characteristics and visual learning preference, goal orientation, self-efficacy on ability among the affective characteristics. Multiple regression analysis of the cognitive characteristics on conceptual understanding found that field dependence-independence was the most significant predictor. Self-regulated ability and a deep learning strategy were also found to have predictive power. Lastly, analysis of the affective characteristics, visual learning preference and self-efficacy on ability exposed them to be significant predictors of student conceptual understanding.
Keywords
computer-assisted instruction; science concept learning; conceptual understanding; cognitive. affective characteristics;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994). The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction
2 Jelfs, A., & Colboum, C. (2002). Do students' approaches to learning affect their perceptions of using computing and information technology? Journal of Educational Media, 27(112), 41-54   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. NT: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4 Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J., & Schofield, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual learning style. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), 169-184   DOI
5 Linn, M. C., & Kyllonen, P. (1981). The field dependence-independerce construct: Some, one or none. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 261-273   DOI
6 Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for acadermic success. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313-327
7 Parkinson, A., & Redmond, J. A. (2002). Do cognitive styles affect learning performance in different computer media? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, 34(3), 39-43
8 Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Bayraktar, S. (2002). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173-188
10 Anderman, E. M, & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-831   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 116-125   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Papanastasiou, E., Zembylas, M, & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA result from PISA. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 325-332   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Noh, T., & Scharmann, L. C. (1997). Instructional influence of a molecular-level pictorial presentation of matter on students' conceptions and problem-solving ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 199-217   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences that affect the way students approach learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 85-124   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Pillay, H. (1998). An investigation of the effect of individual cognitive preferences on learning through computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 171-182   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Riding, R. J., Grimley, M, Dahraei, H, & Banner, G. (2003). Cognitive style, working memory and learning behaviour and attainment in school subjects. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 149-169   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40   DOI
18 Kitsantas, A., Reiser, R., & Doster, J. (2004). Developing self -regulated learners: Goal setting, selfevaluation, and organizational signals during acquisition of procedural skills. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 269-287   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Regina, S., Persichitte, K, & Jones, L. (2001). Relation of student characteristics to learning of basic biochemistry concept from a multimedia goal-based scenario. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New orleans, LA
20 Joo, Y., Bong, M., & Choi, H. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(2), 5-17   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4). 833-846   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Askar, P., Yavuz, H., & Koksal, M. (1992). Students' perceptions of computer assisted instruction environment and their attitudes towards computer assisted learning. Educational Research, 34(2), 133-139   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Lin, C., & Dwyer, F. (2004). Effect of varied animated enhancement strategies in facilitating achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(2), 185-198