指導教授 : 陳明溥 學生 : 張庭禎

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Breadth-first and Depth-first

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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.

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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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).

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.