1

Cultural Differences And Their Effect On

Cognitive Types And Learning Styles
Sydney Brooks Blake and S. Marc Azordegan
National University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare cultural differences and their impact on cognitive types
and learning styles in an online graduate program. Results from this study suggested that in spite
of a learning environment that incorporated varied cognitive types and learning styles, cultural
variations between the students and the classroom made a difference in the level of achievement.
A German student cohort appeared not to utilize the learning strategies as expertly as the U. S.
student cohort. These findings supported the research by Ogbu (1995) and the traditional
motivational literature.
INTRODUCTION
Anytime anywhere online (distance education) modalities are frequently discussed
and often criticized in organizations of higher education. The design and implementation of
instruction in online formats are of central concern to many educators. Research, conducted from
a variety of perspectives in this area, has suggested that online programs provide a more positive
environment for instruction designed to accommodate individual differences compared to
traditional on ground programs. For example, individual differences, manifested as variations in
cognitive types and learning styles, are addressed more easily through accessible technological
tools, e.g., CDs, WEB-based resources and links, synchronous and asynchronous
communications. However, evidence supporting this hypothesis with adult online learners is
modest at best. In addition, research on the effect of culture on the utilization of instructional
strategies that circumvent cognitive and learning differences remains in the early stages (Banks,
1987; Gordon, 1996; Greenfield, 1994).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate two culturally diverse cohorts and their
employment of teaching strategies known to support learning for students with varied cognitive
types and learning styles. An assumption of the study was that differences between the cohorts
in their cognitive types and learning styles were accommodated within the design of the course.
In this environment, cultural differences would be more apparent.
GROWTH OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Distance education is an instructional delivery media that does not constrain the student
to be physically present in the same location as the instructor. Entirely online courses are also
known as distance education courses, i.e., students may take the online course from anywhere
around the globe.
Distance education is emerging as a popular and growing alternative in the current
educational delivery system, especially in higher education. Much of the growth comes from a
demand for educational opportunities that have flexible accessibility. A third of higher education
institutions offered distance education courses in the fall of 1995, another quarter planned to

2
offer such courses in the next three years (NCES, 1998). Higher education institutions, in
academic year 1994-1995, offered an estimated 25,730 distance education courses.
According to Bates (1986), there are two basically different approaches to distance
education. One is based on structured, pre-programmed learning materials and the other is based
on the computers communications functions. These two approaches have completely distinct
philosophies of education. The former is called the black box approach. This approach views the
computer as a black box to substitute for the traditional face-to-face (FtF) teacher. Therefore, it is
the computer or black box that teaches the students. The frequent example is computer-assisted
learning (CAL) software. The latter view is called networks approach. This approach views the
computer as a channel of communication between learners and teachers. The frequent example is
computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems. Therefore, it is the teacher who teaches the
students, only with the computer as a channel of facilitating the two-way communication
between teachers and students, online but at a distance. Within the network approach, teachers
are able to incorporate varied teaching strategies simultaneously in instruction, which may not be
possible in on ground classes. Varied instructional methodologies may be presented that
facilitate the learning of individuals with differing cognitive types and learning styles.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND DISTANCE EDUCATION
Researchers have indicated that there are significant individual differences in the
cognitive processes that are adopted during learning and solving problems (Anderson, 1983;
Gagne, 1987; Messick, 1976; Robertson, 1985; Sternberg, 1997). Findings from both qualitative
and quantitative research have indicated that there are several major dimensions of individual
differences (Dunn, DeBello, Brennan, Krimsky, & Murrain, 1981; Riding & Cheema, 1991). Of
these dimensions, cognitive style is most studied.
Interest in cognitive styles goes back at least to Jung (1926), who proposed a theory of
psychological types that, in modified form, is still used today in assessments of styles through
inventory tests. The concept of cognitive styles was originally proposed by Allport (1937), when
he referred to an individuals habitual or typical way of perceiving, remembering, thinking, and
problem solving. Currently, researchers have suggested that there were as many as nineteen
cognitive styles (e.g., Messick, 1976; Smith, 1984) with many different definitions. However,
most researchers have defined cognitive styles as a fairly fixed characteristic, or a typically
preferred mode of processing information (e.g., Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Riding, Glass &
Douglas, 1993; Tennant, 1988). Cognitive styles are preferences for the ways in which learners
organize stimuli and construct meanings out of experiences .
Many cognitive styles have been identified and studied over the years. For example:
breadth of categorizing (Kogan & Wallach, 1964), cognitive complexity vs. cognitive simplicity
(Kelly, 1955), deep-elaborative vs. shallow-reiterative (Schmeck, 1983), divergent vs.
convergent (Hudson, 1966), field dependence vs. field independence (Witkin, 1962), global vs.
analytical (Kirby, 1988), impulsive vs. reflectivity (Kagan, 1965), leveler vs. sharpener
(Holzman & Klein, 1954), need for cognition (Tanaka, Panter, & Winborne, 1986-87), objective
vs. nonobjective (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982), organizer vs. non-organizer (Atman, 1988),
right- vs. left-brained (Torrance & Rockenstein, 1988), risk-taking vs. cautiousness (Kogan &
Wallach, 1964; Kogan, 1971), scanning vs. focusing (Gardner, 1961), sensitizers vs. repressors
(Bergouist, Lloyd, & Johansson, 1973), sensory modality preferences (Bartlett, 1932; Galton,
1883), simultaneous vs. successive (Das, 1988), verbalizer vs. imager (Riding & Taylor, 1976),
verbalizer vs. visualizer (Richardson, 1977), visual vs. haptic perceptual type (Lewenfeld, 1945);

3
holist vs. analytic (Peters, 1977), holist-analytic vs. verbal-imagery (Riding & Cheema, 1991),
holist vs. serialist (Pask, 1972), Kolbs learning style model (Kolb, 1984), as well as the MBTI
learning style model (Lawrence, 1984).
Among all the types of styles, the dimension of field-dependence and field-independence,
which reflects ones mode of perceiving, remembering and thinking, has emerged as one of the
most widely studied cognitive style with the broadest application to problems of Education
(Messick, 1976). For the purpose of this paper, attention will be focused on this style.
Field Independence Versus Field Dependence
Field independence versus field dependency is probably the most well known style. It
refers to a tendency to approach the environment in an analytical, as opposed to global, fashion.
At a perceptual level, field independent personalities are able to distinguish figures as discrete
from their backgrounds compared to field dependent individuals who experience events in an
undifferentiated way. In addition, field dependent individuals have a greater social orientation
relative to field independent personalities. Studies have identified a number of connections
between this cognitive style and learning (see Messick, 1976). For example, field independent
individuals are likely to learn more effectively under conditions of intrinsic motivation (selfstudy) and are influenced less by social reinforcement. In addition, according to Witkin, Moore,
Goodenough, and Cox (1977), field independent persons tend to be intrinsically motivated and
enjoy individualized learning, while field dependent ones tend to be extrinsically motivated and
enjoy cooperative learning. The field independence dimension is also related to some other
individual characteristics, such as solving analogical problems. According to Antonietti and
Gioletta (1995), cognitive styles, rather than general abilities, are related to analogical problem
solving. Antonietti and Gioletta found that field independent participants were more likely to be
analogical solvers than field dependent ones. Males tended to use analogical solutions more
frequently than females. In addition, according to Braune and Wickens (1986), there are three
important dimensions of individual differences in time-sharingserial processing, parallel
processing, and the internal model. Field independent persons perform better in the parallel
processing conditions, while field dependent ones perform better in the serial processing
conditions.
The field independence dimension is also related to some task characteristics. According
to Bennink (1982), high and low field articulation (FA) students show differences in the
following two major respects under cognitively demanding conditions: (a) integrating a set of
semantically related sentences to answer inference questions and (b) remembering the actual
propositions themselves.
Relationship of Cognitive Types to Learning Styles
Some researchers use cognitive types and learning styles interchangeably. However,
according to Liu and Ginther (1999), cognitive styles are more related to theoretical or academic
research, while learning styles are more related to practical applications, i.e., specific learning
tasks. As indicated by these researchers a major difference between these two terms is the
number of style elements involved. Specifically, cognitive types are more related to a bipolar
dimension while learning styles are not necessarily either/or extremes.
Learning styles specifically deal with characteristic styles of learning. Kolb (1984)
proposed a theory of experiential learning that involved four principal stages: concrete
experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Pask

4
(1976) described a learning style called serialist versus holist. Serialists prefer to learn in a
sequential fashion, whereas holists prefer to learn in a hierarchical manner, i.e., top-down.
According to Schmeck (1988), there were two basic types of learning styles. One was globalholist/field dependent/right brained, the other was focused-detailed/field independent/left
brained. Schmeck asserted that, although both styles are equally good for problem solving, each
style is likely to be associated with greater efficiency in specific tasks.
Theoretically, cognitive types and learning styles could be used to design instructional
strategies that would be most effective for a group of learners, despite cognitive type or learning
style. However, research to date has not identified many robust relationships (Cronbach &
Snow, 1977).
Distance Education, Cognitive Types and Learning Styles
The research on distance education for adult students in higher education classes in the
United States found that the students tended to be more intrinsically motivated than their
younger counterparts (Watkins & Hattie, 1981; Watkins, 1983). Generally, mature students rely
more on a deep-level approach in learning compared to their younger counterparts, who mainly
depend on rote learning. In addition, 57% of the students have felt that they could participate
more equally in CMC than in FtF communication. Coggins (1988) found that the preferred
learning style was influential on students completion of the external degree programs in distance
education. Other researchers found that reasons for attrition included (1) some distance learners
did not have effective learning strategies (e. g., Ackerman & Woltz, 1994) and (2) some cited that
either the telecourse orientation and testing schedules were not convenient, or the pace of the
telecourse was not appropriate, such as too fast, too slow, too hard, or too easy (e. g., Minich,
1998). Some researchers have found that cultural differences impacted success in distance
education while others did not (Dunn & Dunn, 1979).
TECHNOLOGY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
In summary, cognitive types and learning styles appear to play an important factor in
learning, both on ground and online. Further, research suggests that instructional adaptation and
design of distance education to the students cognitive types and learning styles are more easily
adapted in online classrooms than traditional classrooms.
Educational technology has developed rapidly and has exhibited many new
characteristics. Riding and Rayner (1995) pointed out six characteristics that are more recently
incorporated into distance learning: (1) control of the mode of delivery and the presentation rate
(companion CDs; PowerPoint presentations; textbooks and threaded discussions); (2) learner
control of presentation order, pace of instruction, and selection of learning activities (optional
case studies and exercises; technology enhancements); (3) monitoring of learning performance;
storing responses, and conducting assessments (chats; grade book; collaborative threaded
discussions); (4) provision of simulations which supply learning experiences in a variety of lowcost and risk-free topics (technology enhancements and WEB links); (5) formation of a
collaborative learning group by linking the learner to the instructor and to other students for
support (group work and threaded instruction); and (6) access to learning resources and
assessment materials (integration of technology, WEB links, and chats).
In addition, technology has extensive functions in distance education. McCreary and
Duren (1987) identified ten educational functions of computer conferencing. These functions are
listed below in order from least to most difficult to implement: (1) the notice board, (2) the

5
public tutorial, (3) the individual project, (4) free flow discussion, (5) the structured seminar, (6)
peer counseling, (7) collective database, (8) group products, (9) community decision-making,
and (10) inter-community network. In all, the availability of multiple modes, media and
instructional elaborations and enhancements have provided and environment of learning that is
adoptive to most learning styles and cognitive types.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this study is categorized into four sections: description of the
sample; description of the course; the instruments, and the analysis. The question posed was
whether there were any cultural differences that affected the utilization of the instruction
designed to accommodate learning styles and cognitive types compared to a US based cohort of
students.
Sample
Two cohorts of students constituted the participants of this study. The first cohort
consisted of 15 German students enrolled in an online statistics course. These students were
living in Germany, full-time students in the Master of Business Administration Program (MBA)
at a private, multi-regional non-profit university in Southern California. This course was the
second in the series of 14 courses that constituted the MBA program. The students had little
prior knowledge with online courses or with the Ecollege environment. Their technological
support was made available to them from a German University, located in Halle, Germany. The
students tuition was government paid and students were expected to attend the University in
Germany five days per week, eight hours per day, at a minimum. These students were not
integrated with other students from other countries in the course. The German cohort constituted
a single contained group.
The second cohort consisted of 20 American students enrolled in a separate but similar
statistics course, taught by the same professor, using the exact same instructional supports and
strategies. These students were not officially students in a secondary academic institution, were
working full time, and studied informally, on their own time, and at their own pace. Students in
the U. S. cohort were integrated with other student from different states and countries.
Course Design
The statistics online course contained the following learning support:
(1) Control of the mode of delivery and the presentation rate (companion CDs;
PowerPoint presentations; textbooks and threaded discussions);
(2) Learner control of presentation order, pace of instruction, and selection of learning
activities (optional case studies and exercises; technology enhancements);
(3) Monitoring of learning performance; storing responses, and conducting assessments
(chats; grade book; collaborative threaded discussions);
(4) Provision of simulations, which supply learning experiences in a variety of low-cost
and risk-free topics (technology enhancements and WEB links);
(5) Formation of a collaborative learning group by linking the learner to the instructor
and to other students for support (group work and threaded instruction); and

6
(6) Access to learning resources and assessment materials (integration of technology,
WEB links, and chats).
In addition, a supplementary standardized syllabus that presented statistical concepts in an
analogical format (Blake, 1990) was available to all students and weekly discussions focused
some time on this book.
The course was presented in a two-month format, with weekly chat sessions. Students
were required to attend at least four out of eight, but were encouraged to attend all chats.
Students were also required to participate three times on a weekly basis to each of three threaded
discussions. There were weekly quizzes that were not graded and weekly homework
assignments.
Instruments
All students were given the same information, instructional strategies, elaborations and
requirements. During the two-month format, students chats, threads, and emails were assessed
for level of declarative knowledge (knowledge content, understanding, integration, and
synthesis) and level of procedural skills (rote versus application/novel problem solving). Rubrics
were used to assess the level s attainment of the students. Rubrics were based on Bloom et als
taxonomy (1956) (see attached). Two independent scores were computed for each section.
Students grades on three tests were also compared.
Analysis
Demographics of the two cohorts were assessed using descriptive statistics. There were
no significant differences between the groups ages (p > .05). No prior testing of learning was
compared because the university did not require standardized entrance testing. There were
significant differences in the cohorts between level of education and number of years working (p
< .05). The German cohort had significantly more experience in the classroom compared to the
U. S. cohort. The U. S. cohort had significantly more hours in a work environment. The
expectation was that the German cohort would surpass the U. S. cohort in achievement because
of their prior knowledge and experience in the classroom. However, results obtained from the
study did not support this hypothesis.
The scores from all rubrics were collated and compared using a multiple analysis of
variance procedure. The U. S. cohort scored significantly higher on level of integration,
synthesis, and complex problem solving compared to the German cohort (p < .05). There were
no significant differences between the two groups on the definition and identification of core
concepts.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Results from this study suggested that in spite of a learning environment that
incorporated varied cognitive types and learning styles, cultural variations between the students
and the classroom made a significant difference in the achievement of German students in an
online graduate statistics course. Ogbu (1995) has classified cultural differences in the
educational context into three types: universal, primary, and secondary. The research on
universal differences in culture discordance is relevant to this study. Universal differences refer
to the match of a learners basic culture to the culture found in an educational institution. In this
study, the German culture valued the accumulation of knowledge content in the domain of study.

7
Accumulation referred to the accrual of details1 in a specific content area. Application of
conceptual knowledge occurs after graduation, when graduates are enrolled into internships in
Germany.
On the contrary, the university that delivered the online MBA course had listed relevancy
and application as two of its core values in its mission statement. Community and
organizational outreach provided information for yearly program evaluations and course
configurations. Learning application skills enabled graduates to succeed in their jobs or to
advance to higher levels in Southern California area.
The results of this study are also supported by the research on motivation (e.g., Bandura,
1977; Gagne, 1985; Weiner, 1980), which suggests that values are the best predictor of success in
achievement. Again, application of core concepts were not valued by the German cohort,
detailed learning was.
Recommendations
Although suggestive, results are based on a small sample size and on a single course
within a graduate program. A continued study of this cohorts performance in this program
would provide information of the impact of culture in online courses that are not as applicationbased compared to the course in statistics.
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Woltz, D. J. (1994). Determinants of learning and performance in an
associative memory/substitution task: Task constraints, individual differences, volition, and
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (4), 487-515.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Antonietti, A., & Gioletta, M. A. (1995). Individual differences in analogical problem solving.
Personality and Individual Differences, 18 (5), 611-619.
Atman, K. S. (1988). Psychological type elements and goal accomplishment style: Implications
for distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2 (3), 36-44.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Banks, J. A. (1987). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies. Newton, Mass: Allyn and Bacon, p.
60.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bates, T. (1986). Computer assisted learning or communications: Which way for information
technology in distance education? Journal of Distance Education, 1 (1), 41-57.

8
Bennink, C. D. (1982), Individual differences in cognitive style, working memory, and semantic
integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 16 (3), 267-280.
Bergouist, W. H., Lloyd, J. T., & Johansson, S. L. (1973). Individual differences among
repressors and sensitizers in conceptual skills. Social Behavior and Personality, 1 (2), 144-152.
Blake, S. Explanatory illustrations and the presentation of statistical concepts. A paper
presented at the annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Marina Del
Rey, CA. 1996.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals. Handbook I:
Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
Braune, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1986). Time-sharing revisited: Test of a componential model for
the assessment of individual differences. Ergonomics, 29 (11), 1399-1414.
Coggins, C. C. (1988). Preferred learning styles and their impact on completion of external
degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2 (1), 25-37.
Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods.
Das, J. P. (1988). Simultaneous-successive processing and planning: Implications for school
learning. In R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 101-130). New York:
Plenum Press.
Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., Krimsky, J., & Murrain, P. (1981). Learning style researchers
define differences differently. Educational Leadership, 38, 327-374.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they Can they
Be matched? Educational Leadership, 36, 238-244.
Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company.
Galton, F. (1883). Human faculty and development. London: Macmillan.
Gardner, R. W. (1961). Cognitive controls of attention deployment as determinants of visual
illusions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 120-129.
Gordon, L. (1996). A teachers guide to cognitive type theory and learning style. ASCD.
Griggs, R. D., & Dunn, S. A. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning style: teaching and
counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

9
Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Independence and interdependence as developmental scripts:
Implications for theory, research and Practice. Cross-cultural roots of minority child
development. Greenfield, Cocking, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.:
1-34.
Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. (1954). Cognitive system-principles of leveling and sharpening:
Individual differences in visual time-error assimilation effects. Journal of Psychology, 37, 105122.
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary Imaginations. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jung, C. (1926). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation. NY: Hartcourt Brace.
Kagan, J. (1965). Impulsive and reflective children: Significance of conceptual tempo, in J. D.
Krumboltz (Ed.), Learning and the educational process (pp. 133-161). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. I). New York: Norton.
Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy, and skills in reading. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning
strategies and learning styles (pp. 229-274). New York: Plenum Press.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk-taking: A study in cognition and personality. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kogan, N. (1971). Educational implications of cognitive styles. In G. S. Lesser (Ed.),
Psychology and educational practice (pp. 242-292). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, & Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style research involving MBTI. Journal of
Psychological Type, 8, 2-15.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in
program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.
Lewenfeld, V. (1945). Tests for visual and haptical aptitudes. American Journal of Psychology,
58, 100-112.
Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume II, Number
III, Fall 1999 State University of West Georgia, Distance Education
McCreary, E. K., & Duren, J. V. (1987). Educational applications of computer conferencing.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16 (2), 107-115.
Messick, S. (Ed.) (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10

Minich, E. (1998, spring/summer). Why do students withdraw from telecourses? Agenda, 16.
nces.ed.gov/pubs98/distance/chap2.html. (1998). Distance Education in Higher Education
Institutions.
Ogbu, J. U. (1995). Cultural problems in minority education: Their interpretations and
consequences - Part One: Theoretical Background.' Urban Review 27 189-205.
Pask, G. (1972). A fresh look at cognition and the individual. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 4, 211-216.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and Strategies of Learning. British Journal of Education Psychology,
1976: 46, 128-148.
Peters A. M. (1977). Languages learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts?
Language, 53, 560-573.
Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal of Mental
Imagery, 1 (1), 109-126.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles -- an overview and integration. Educational
Psychology, 11 (3-4), 193-215.
Riding, R. J., Glass, A., & Douglas, G. (1993). Individual differences in thinking: Cognitive and
neurophysiological perspectives. Special issues: Thinking. Educational Psychology, 13 (3 & 4),
267-279.
Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. (1995). The information superhighway and individualized learning.
Educational Psychology, 15 (4), 365-378.
Riding, R. J., & Taylor, E. M. (1976). Imagery performance and prose comprehension in 7-yearold children. Educational Studies (England), 2, 21-27.
Robertson, I. T. (1985). Human information-processing strategies and style. Behavior and
Information Technology, 4 (1), 19-29.
Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck
(Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 233-280). New York: Academic Press.
Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Smith, R. M. (1984). Learning how to learn. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sternberg, R. J. Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style. American
Psychologist.

11

Tanaka, J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. C. (1986-87). Associations between daydreaming
style and information processing predispositions. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 6 (2),
159-166.
Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
Torrance, E. P., & Rockenstein, Z. L. (1988). Styles of thinking and creativity. In R. R. Schmeck
(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 275-290). New York: Plenum Press.
Watkins, D. (1983). Only rote learning needed at ANU. ANU Reporter, 14 (16), 3.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students:
Investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 51, 384-393.
Weiner, B. (1980). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
Wilson, J. D. (1981). Student learning in higher education. London: Croom Helm.
Winn, W. D. (1982). The role of diagrammatic representation in learning sequence,
identification, and classification as a function of verbal and spatial ability. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 19 (1), 79-89.
Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.
Witkin, H. A. (1979). Socialization, culture and ecology in the development of group and sex
differences in cognitive style. Human Development, 22 (5), 358-372.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field
independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational
Research, 47, 1-64.

12
Appendices
GRADING CRITERIA FOR THREADED DISCUSSION PARTICIPATION
Student

Initial Post
Level of content

Initial Post
Quality of
Writing

Follow up
Discussion:
use of
Description

Follow up
Discussion:
use of
integration

1 2 3 4 56

1 2 3 4 56

123456

Follow up
Discussion: use of
Evaluation/problem
of transfer of
content
1 2 3 4 56

Follow up
Discussion
Quality of
Writing
1 2 3 4 56

1 2 3 4 56

Level 1-2 C
Copied or restated from text or supplementary material
Level 3-4 B
Explanatory with examples, reported in isolation and not connected to research questions
Level 5-6 A
Integrated in the global picture with synthesis of concepts and problem solving evidence
GRADING CRITERIA FOR CHATS
Student

Level of
Questions

Level of
participation in
discussions

Grade in
quizzes

123456

1 2 3 4 56

1 2 3 4 56

Number of
responses or
evidence of
activity
1 2 3 4 56

Level 1-2 C
Copied or restated from text or supplementary material
Level 3-4 B
Explanatory with examples, reported in isolation and not connected to research questions
Level 5-6 A
Integrated in the global picture with synthesis of concepts and problem solving evidence

13
RUBRIC FOR MIDTERM AND FINAL
Studen
t

Sample for Methodology

Sample for Definitions

Sample for
Descriptives

Description of sample 2
points
Who

Definition
Example
Differentiation

Definition
Example
Differentiation

Why
Sampling technique

Sample for
Inferential

Sample for
research
question

Instrument

Description of instrument
Sampling information
Process

How to sample
Development of
instrument

Data gathering
Stats
Variables
Categorization

Level of measurement
Description
Inferential
Report

Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
Level 1-2 C
Copied or restated from text or supplementary material
Level 3-4 B
Explanatory with examples, reported in isolation and not connected to research questions
Level 5-6 A
Integrated in the global picture with synthesis of concepts and problem solving evidence