Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses
Graduate School
1980
Student Achievement in Biology in Terms of
Cognitive Styles of Students and Teachers.
Pauline E. Jolly
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation
Jolly, Pauline E., "Student Achievement in Biology in Terms of Cognitive Styles of Students and Teachers." (1980). LSU Historical
Dissertations and Theses. 3524.
http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3524
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.T he sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we m eant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in “ sectioning”
the material. It is custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.
University
Microfilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC 1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D
8103636
JOLLY, PAULINE E.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY IN TERMS OF COGNITIVE STYLES
OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
The Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical Col.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
PH.D.
1980
PLEASE NOTE:
In a l l cases t h i s material has been filmed in the best po ssib le
way from the a v a ila b le copy. Problems encountered with t h i s
document have been i d e n t i f i e d here with a check mark
.
1.
Glossy photographs
_
2.
Colored i l l u s t r a t i o n s ____________
3.
Photographs with dark background ________
4.
I l l u s t r a t i o n s are poor copy ________
5.
Dr i n t shows through as there is t e x t on both sides of page ________
6.
I n d i s t i n c t , broken or small p r i n t onseveral pages
7.
Tightly bound copy with p r i n t l o s t in spine ________
8.
Computer p r in to u t pages with i n d i s t i n c t p r i n t ________
9.
Page(s)
lacking when material received, and not av a ila b le
from school or author
10.
Page(s) ________ seem to be missing in numbering only as t e x t
follows
11.
Poor carbon copy _________
12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred
type ____
13. Appendix pages are poor copy _________
14. Original copy with l i g h t type _________
15. Curling and wrinkled pages _________
16.
Other
University
M icrSilm s
International
________________
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY IN TERMS OF COGNITIVE
STYLES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Interdepartmental Program of Education
by
Pauline E. Jolly
B.Sc., University of the West Indies, 1971
Dip.Ed., University of the West Indies, 1975
M.S., Tuskegee Institute, 1977
August, 1980
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I vish to thank my Major Professor, Dr. Barbara Strawitz, for
all the enthusiasm she showed, for the ready and expert way in which
she guided my work, and for the encouragement she gave throughout
the time this study was in progress.
My deepest appreciation must
also be expressed to the other members of my committee, Drs. Sam Adams,
Jerry Andrews, Kenneth Corkum, Spencer Maxcy and Fred Smith who gave
me very helpful directions and behaved in an extremely cooperative
and humane manner.
I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to other individuals who
were most directly involved:
Dr. Donald Hoover and Mr. Mike Chambers,
officials at the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board Office, who
helped gain permission for the study to be conducted and to get it
started; the principals who showed me great hospitality when I visited
their schools; the teachers and students who so kindly participated
in the study; Mrs. Gabie Church who quickly and efficiently helped
with my data analysis; and those who helped type this dissertation.
Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my husband, Curtis,
for the assistance, inspiration, and encouragement he gave during the
tenure of the study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................
ii
LIST OF T A B L E S ...............................
vi
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................... vii
A B S T R A C T .......................................................... viii
Chapter
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ............................................
1
STATEMENT OF THE P R O B L E M ..............................
2
DEFINITION OF TERMS....................................
3
IMPORTANCE OF THE S T U D Y . .............................
3
DELIMITATIONS OF THE S T U D Y ............................
4
REVIEW OF RELATED L I T E R A T U R E ...........................
6
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN STUDENT LEARNING..................................
6
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN TEACHING...........................................
8
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS ...................
9
Affective Cognitive Style Compatibility Between
Field Independent and Field Dependent Teachers
and Students......................................
9
Academic Cognitive Style Compatibility Between
Field Independent and Field Dependent Teachers
and Students.........................................11
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE R E V I E W ............................ 12
PREDICTIONS............................................... 13
3.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION.................................. 15
INSTRUMENTS............................................... 15
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). . . . . . .
iii
15
3.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION (cont.)
The Cell Chemistry Test (CCT)..................... ..
. 16
POPULATION AND SAMPLE OF THE S T U D Y . .......................17
P R O C E D U R E .....................
4.
17
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A ........................... 20
RESULTS OF THE CELL CHEMISTRY TEST......................... 20
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR THE FOUR FIELD DEPENDENTFIELD INDEPENDENT TEACHER-STUDENT GROUPS USED IN
THE STUDY................................................ 24
Null Hypotheses Tested ................................ 27
SUMMARY OF F I N D I N G S ........................................30
5.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION IN TERMS OFCONTEXT OF THE
STUDY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................
32
S U M M A R Y .....................................................32
C O N C L U S I O N S ................................................ 33
DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF CONTEXT OF THES T U D Y ............... 33
IMPLICATIONS................................................ 35
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 36
REFERENCES............................................................. 37
APPENDICES........................................
40
A.
LETTER TO DR. D. HOOVER REQUESTING PERMISSION TO
CONDUCT THE S T U D Y ......................................... 41
B.
AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM DR. D. H O O V E R .....................43
C.
APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN, L.S.U.COMMITTEE ON THE
USE OF HUMANS AND ANIMALS AS RESEARCH SUBJECTS.............44
D.
TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE UNIT......................... 45
E.
PANEL OF EXPERTS.............................................. 46
F.
TEACHER EXPERIMENT SIGN-UP F O R M ............................. 47
iv
Page
APPENDICES (cont.)
G.
PARENTS' PERMISSION F O R M .................................. 48
H.
THE CELL CHEMISTRY T E S T .................................. 49
I.
ANSWER SHEET FOR THE T E S T ................................ 61
VITA............................................................... 62
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
PaSe
Distribution of Student Scores on the Cell
Chemistry Test (Pretest).........
21
Distribution of Student Scores on the Cell
Chemistry Test (Posttest)......................-.........
23
Unadjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and
Standard Errors of the Means for the
Pretest and Posttest Scores of Students
on the Cell Chemistry Test
* . 24
4.
Analysis of Covariance of Raw Scores on the
Cell Chemistry Test for the Four Field
Dependent-Field Independent TeacherStudent Groups.............................................. 25
5.
Adjusted Means oil-.the Scores on the Cell
Chemistry Test for the Four Field
Dependent (FD) Field Independent (FI)
Teacher-Student Groups..................................... 28
6.
Levels of Significance of Differences Between
Pairs of Adjusted Means of Scores on the Cell
Chemistry Test for the Four Field Dependent
(FD) Field Independent (FI) TeacherStudent Groups
vi
< . 28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
Interaction Between Students' and Teachers’
Cognitive Styles on the Cell Chemistry
Test Scores...................
vii
26
ABSTRACT
This study was designed to determine whether biology students
who were matched to their teachers in cognitive style achieved signifi­
cantly higher mean scores on a cognitive test in biology than biology
students who were mismatched to their teachers in cognitive style.
The hypotheses tested were:
1.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent and field dependent students taught by field inde­
pendent teachers.
2.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent and field dependent students taught by field depen­
dent teachers.
3.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of field
independent students taught by field independent teachers and field
independent students taught by field dependent teachers.
4.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of field
dependent students taught by field dependent teachers and field depen­
dent students taught by field independent teachers.
The Group Embedded Figures Test was used to determine field
dependence-independence.
The study population consisted of tenth grade
biology teachers and their students using the textbook Biology: Living
Systems (Oram, 1976) in the public schools of East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana, during the 1979-1980 school year.
One hundred fifty-three
field independent and 196 field dependent students taught by ten
teachers (five field independent and five field dependent) provided
data for the study.
Sixty-one of the field independent and 109 of the
viii
field dependent students were taught by field independent teachers and
the other 92 field independent and 87 field dependent students were
taught by field dependent teachers.
The two levels of cognitive style (field dependence and field
independence) of teachers and of students were combined into a 2x2
factorial design.
An achievement test on a unit in biology was ad­
ministered to the students as both a pretest and a posttest.
An
analysis of covariance was carried out on the achievement test data
with the pretest as the covariable and the posttest as the dependent
variable.
The F-test was applied to determine whether the differences
between the various group means were significant.
A difference (significant at .01 level) was found between the
mean achievement scores of students of field independent and field
dependent teachers in favor of the field independent teachers.
A
difference (significant at .01 level) was also found between the mean
achievement scores of field independent and field dependent students
in favor of the field independent students.
No significant teacher-
student cognitive style interaction was found to have occurred.
Significant differences were found to exist between the group
means for three of the four hypotheses which were tested.
Field in­
dependent students achieved higher mean scores (significant at .01
level) than field dependent students with both field independent and
field dependent teachers.
There was no significant difference between
the mean achievement scores of field independent students taught by
field independent teachers and field independent students taught by
field dependent teachers.
Field dependent students taught by field
independent teachers achieved higher mean scores (significant at .01
ix
level) than field dependent students taught by field dependent
teachers.
Therefore, neither a teacher-student cognitive style match
nor mismatch resulted in significantly higher achievement of field
independent students, but a teacher-student cognitive style mismatch
resulted in
significantly higher achievement
of field dependent
students.
From the findings of the study it was concluded that for certain
types of abstract scientific material, like the unit material, the
cognitive style of the teacher was not important in the cognitive
achievement of field independent students.
Teacher cognitive style
was important in the achievement of field dependent students, but it
was a teacher-student cognitive style mismatch rather than a match
that resulted in the significantly higher achievement of these students.
x
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In both teaching and learning activities individuals display certain
distinctive behavior patterns which are consistent, fairly stable over
time, and observable from situation to situation. This unique way of
functioning which may help to explain how an individual's mind operates
is regarded as the style of the individual.
Cognitive styles refer to individual differences in how people
perceive, think, solve problems, learn, and relate to others.
One of
the most prominent and extensively studied of the cognitive style dimen­
sions is that of field dependence-independence.
Witkin _et_ a l . (1962)
explained that field dependent persons perceive a situation globally or
as an entirety, accepting the way a visual experience or "field" is
organized.
Field independent persons, on the other hand, are more
analytic in their approach and are more capable of differentiating or
"disembedding" discrete parts of a field than field dependent persons.
Experimental evidence shows that teachers and students have prefer­
ences for certain types of curricular materials and teaching situations
and display particular personality characteristics that are all consis­
tent with their field dependent or field independent cognitive style
(Wu, 1968; Ruble and Nakamura, 1972; Pemberton, 1952). Dunn and Dunn
(1979) found that students at all levels become increasingly motivated
and are higher achievers when they are taught through methods that
complement their learning characteristics.
1
2
Since field dependent and field independent teachers and students
behave consistently in a manner which is characteristic of their par­
ticular style, it is likely that a student may achieve more with a
teacher who has a similar style than with one with a dissimilar style.
Further knowledge of the part played by teacher and learner styles can
therefore help clarify certain aspects of the teaching-learning process.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study was designed to determine whether biology students
who were matched to their teachers in cognitive style achieved signifi­
cantly
higher mean scores on a cognitive test in biology than biology
students who were mismatched to their teachers in cognitive style.
The hypotheses tested were:
1.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent and field dependent students taught by field indepen­
dent teachers.
2.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of field
independent and field dependent students taught by field dependent
teachers.
3.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent students taught by field independent teachers and
field independent students taught by field dependent teachers.
4.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of field
dependent students taught by field dependent teachers and field dependent
students taught by field independent teachers.
3
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Field dependent persons are defined as those who perceive a
situation globally, accepting the organization of a visual experience
or "field" as it is (Witkin et al., 1962).
In this study, persons
regarded as field dependent will be those who score from zero to six
on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) which is described by
Witkin et: al., 1971.
Field
situations
independent persons are defined as those who approach
analytically and are capable of differentiating or "disembedding"
discrete parts from the whole field (Witkin et al., 1962).
In this
study, persons regarded as field independent will be those who score
from twelve to eighteen on the Group Embedded Figures Test.
Group Achievement is defined in this study as the posttest means
on the Cell Chemistry Test as adjusted for
IMPORTANCE OF THE
pretest means.
STUDY
There is very little information on the interaction which takes
place in the teaching-learning process as a result of differences in
the field dependent-independent cognitive styles of teachers and
students.
A study done by James (1973) showed that greater interpersonal
attraction existed between teachers and students of similar cognitive
style than between those of dissimilar style.
Other studies have also
shown that teachers and students who were matched to each other in
cognitive style viewed each other positively, whereas those who were
mismatched viewed each other negatively (DiStefano, 19 70; Saracho,
1978; Packer and Bain, 1978).
4
Witkin et al. (1977) have suggested that shared interest, common
personality attributes, and similar modes of cummunication between
students and teachers of similar cognitive style (field independent or
field dependent) may result in greater student achievement, however, only
one investigation of this hypothesis has been reported (Packer and Bain,
1978).
The findings of Packer and Bain's study for field dependence-
independence can be generalized only to a very small proportion of
college level subjects.
This study was the first to this writer's knowl­
edge in which student achievement in terms of the field dependentindependent cognitive styles of students and teachers was investigated
with high school students and teachers as the subjects.
DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The GEFT was administered only to the teachers and students using
the textbook Biology:
Living Systems (Oram, 1976) in the schools of
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana during the 1979-1980 school year.
Teachers and students who participated in the study were selected on
the basis of their scores on the test.
Therefore, this study drew upon
a select group of secondary biology teachers and students.
The study did not encompass an entire semester's work, but instead
focused on a unit in biology designed to last for a three to four week
period.
This unit was a standard unit outlined in the East Baton Rouge
Parish Public School System's Biological Resource Guide"*- and was not
specially prepared by the writer.
"^Aertker, Robert J. Superintendent, East Baton Rouge Parish Public
School System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, A Biological Resource Guide,
Summer, 1975.
Although some discussion of teaching method in relation to
cognitive style was undertaken, this study was not an investigation
of methodology.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The review of the literature concerning student achievement in
terms of cognitive styles of teachers and students focused on the role
of field dependence-independence in student learning, the role of
field dependence-independence in teaching, and the role of field
dependence-independence in the teaching-learning process.
Affective
and academic cognitive style compatibility between field independent
and field dependent teachers and students were considered under the
latter topic.
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN STUDENT LEARNING
Studies by Anderson (1976) and Perney (1971) have shown the
field dependent-independent cognitive style to be an influential
variable in student achievement.
Anderson (1976) found a significant
correlation between field dependence-independence and academic achieve­
ment in elementary school pupils.
Perney (1971) reported the presence
of a functional relationship between field dependent-independent cog­
nitive style and achievement in elementary school pupils.
Both the cognitive and social behaviors of field dependentindependent persons have been considered in studies investigating the
part that cognitive style plays in student learning.
As a result of
a more social orientation, relatively field dependent persons are much
better at learning materials with social content than field independent
persons.
Studies by Ruble and Nakamura (1972) and Fitzgibbons et al.
7
(1965) have shown this to be true.
These studies suggest that field
dependent persons are better at remembering social material and that
this superiority is based on their selective attention to such material.
Field independent persons, on the other hand, have been found to be
more impersonally oriented and less attentive to social cues in learning.
Unlike field dependent persons, field independent persons have been
found to be more interested in what is abstract and theoretical (Biggs
et al., 1971; Pemberton, 1952; Stidham, 1967) and field independent
students have also been found to be higher achievers in mathematical and
scientific subject areas than field dependent students (Dubois and Cohen,
1970; Hunt and Raudhawa, 1973;
and Stein, 1968).
Criticism has been shown to have a greater influence on field depen­
dent than on field independent persons (Duvall, 1970; Ferrell, 1971;
Konstadt and Forman, 1965; Randolph, 1971).
In these studies the manner
in which the criticism was made determined whether it had an adverse or
a positive effect on learning.
Nebelkopf and Dreyer (1973) found that field dependent persons more
frequently assume a passive or spectator learning role in contrast to the
more active or participatory learning role displayed by field independent
persons.
The analysis of a situation and the imposition of structure
when none is apparent are mediational processes used by field independent
but not by field dependent persons.
If learning material lacks clear
inherent structure, field dependent students are more likely to have dif­
ficulty learning such material compared to field independent students.
If the material is presented in an already organized form, however, it is
likely that field dependent and field independent students will not differ
in their learning (Koran, et_ a l ., 1971; Schwen, 1970; Renzi, 1974).
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN TEACHING
Research utilizing either student reports of their teachers or
observations of teachers has shown that field dependent and field
independent teachers differ in their teaching strategies and also in
other ways in conducting their classes (Wu, 1968; Moore, 1973).
Where­
as relatively field dependent teachers favor teaching situations that
allow for interaction with students, more field independent teachers
prefer teaching situations that are impersonal in nature and oriented
toward the more cognitive aspects of teaching.
Wu (1968) found that
field dependent social studies student teachers ranked discussion as
a more important teaching approach than either the lecture or discovery
methods which were favored by field independent teachers.
Witkin et al.
(1977) suggested that the discussion method which was considered a
more effective teaching method by field dependent teachers allowed for •
greater social interaction and student participation in structuring
the learning situation than either the lecture or discovery methods.
The lecture and discovery methods which were favored by field indepen­
dent teachers left
these teachers with the responsibility for struc­
turing the learning situation and either of supplying information or
of guiding student learning.
Field dependent and field independent teachers have also been
found to use questions differently in their classes.
Moore (1973)
found that field independent teachers used questions to introduce
topics and to respond to student answers, whereas field dependent
teachers asked questions after instruction mainly to find out whether
students had learned the material.
Field dependent and field independent teachers have been reported
to differ in the way they responded to students who answered questions
incorrectly (Witkin e_t a l., 1977) .
Field independent but not field
dependent teachers felt that informing a student of an incorrect
response and telling the student why it was incorrect was effective in
enhancing student learning.
Field independent teachers also thought that
it was an effective teaching technique to tell students who performed
below capacity that they were displeased with them.
Although field dependent and field independent teachers use dif­
ferent teaching strategies there is no evidence that they differ in
teaching competence.
Witkin et_ al.
(1977) reported that students of
field dependent and field independent teachers did not differ signifi­
cantly in their total achievement scores on a posttest or in their over­
all scores on a test expressing interest in the subject matter at the end
of
a
course.
They concluded that each of the approaches to teaching
used by these teachers may have certain advantages.
THE ROLE OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE
IN THE TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESS
Affective Cognitive Style Compatibility Between Field
Independent and Field Dependent Teachers and Students
The field dependent-independent cognitive style of teachers may
influence their proficiency with different types of instructional
treatments and their spontaneous behaviors in a manner that interacts
directly with the characteristics of students.
DiStefano (1970) found
that teachers and students in a regular classroom, who were matched
to each other in cognitive style, viewed one another positively,
10
whereas teachers and students who were not matched viewed each other
negatively.
James (1973) reported that significantly greater inter­
personal attraction was demonstrated in matched than in mismatched
teacher-student cognitive-style combinations.
Saracho (1978) investigated the relationship between the match
and mismatch of teachers' and students' cognitive styles and teachers'
perceptions of the students' academic achievements.
Although both
field dependent and field independent teachers ranked matched students
similarly to the students' ranking on standardized achievement test
scores, the field dependent teachers ranked mismatched students more
negatively than did field independent teachers.
Packer and Bain (1978) found that students' evaluations of
teachers were influenced by the teacher's cognitive style, more posi­
tive ratings being given to field dependent than to field independent
teachers.
This tendency was due almost entirely to the responses of
field dependent students.
No significant effects of cognitive style
on teacher's ratings of students were obtained.
Packer and Bain also
found that while cognitive style had no significant effect on teachers'
predictions of students' test performance, a significant interaction
effect emerged when accuracy in prediction was considered.
When
teachers were matched with their students in style, they were more
accurate in their prediction than when they were mismatched.
Since these studies indicate that more favorable inclinations
and a greater interpersonal attraction exist between students and
teachers of similar cognitive styles, the question of whether a simi­
larity of cognitive styles between students and teachers also leads to
greater student achievement arises.
Students may learn more
11
effectively when taught by teachers who are matched to them in cogni­
tive style.
Field dependent persons and field independent persons have been
shown to have modes of communication characteristic of their particu­
lar style (Doob, 1958 and Shows, 1968).
This similarity in mode of
communication as a result of cognitive style may facilitate communica­
tion
between teachers and students with the same style.
Witkin et al. (1977) stated that it is reasonable to expect
greater student achievement to occur when students and teachers are
matched in cognitive style since they share similar interests, have
common personality attributes
and similar modes of communicating.
Academic Cognitive Style Compatibility Between Field Independent and
Field Dependent Teachers and Students
Witkin et al.
(1977) pointed out that matching teachers and
students in cognitive style may create a classroom atmosphere that pro­
motes learning.
They argued that the tendency of field independent
teachers to encourage the application of principles is compatible with
that of field independent students to favor the theoretical and abstract.
Also field dependent teachers and students are compatible in their
preference for informational material. Again, the social setting suited
to the personal needs to field dependent students may be provided by
classroom discussion which is the method of teaching preferred by field
dependent teachers.
Packer and Bain (1978) investigated teacher-student cognitive
style compatibility in relation to achievement.
They studied the effects
of cognitive style matching on the learning of a mathematical concept
in 32 teacher-student pairs.
When objective tests were administered
immediately after the lesson had been taught, and one week later,
they found no significant main or interaction effect for the total
group of 32 pairs.
However, for the 16 most extreme pairs for field
dependence-independence there was a significant main effect of student’s
cognitive style and a significant interaction between teacher's cogni­
tive style and student's cognitive style.
On both objective tests
field independent students were found to perform significantly better
with field independent teachers than field dependent students, whereas
there was no difference under field dependent teachers.
When the
effectiveness of the different teachers was considered, field dependent
teachers were significantly more effective than field independent
teachers with field dependent students but not with field independent
students.
Field independent teachers were superior to field dependent
teachers with field independent students.
Packer and Bain pointed
out that the results indicated that the previously reported disadvan­
tage of field dependent students in mathematics may be removed or
lessened if these students are assigned to field dependent teachers.
They felt that even though field independent students seemed to be less
influenced by the cognitive style of the teacher, it is possible that
if such students are disadvantaged on a learning task, they would benefit
more from matching them with field independent teachers.
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The field dependent-independent cognitive style has been shown
to provide broad and effective discriminations between individuals in
the personality, social, perceptual, and intellectual domains.
Field
independent teachers have been shown to be more impersonal, to be more
critical of student performance, and to ask questions in order to
introduce lessons and to respond to students' questions.
They have
also been shown to prefer lecturing as a method of instruction, and
have been reported to teach principles rather than facts. Field
dependent teachers, on the other hand, have been shown to be more
sociable, to prefer more informational materials, to be less critical
of student performance, to ask questions in order to assess student
learning, to prefer discussion as a method of instruction, and to teach
facts rather than principles .
Several studies have shown that students and teachers who have
a similar style, field independent or field dependent, tend to view
each other more positively than teachers and students of dissimilar
cognitive styles.
Also, greater interpersonal attraction has been
shown to exist between students and teachers of similar cognitive style
than of dissimilar styles.
Certain combinations of cognitive style characteristics between
teachers and students that are
probably exist.
most conducive to effective learning
Field independent teachers, in addition to favoring
curriculum materials that emphasize analytical styles, may not include
sufficient social or human content in presenting learning materials to
the disadvantage of field dependent students.
PREDICTIONS
On the basis of the current literature certain expectations of
the present study can be stated.
The unit on "Cell Chemistry" in
biology can be regarded as an abstract unit and the objectives for the
unit were designed to encourage the teachers and students to apply
principles.
Field independent students taught by field independent
teachers would therefore be expected to be the highest achievers of all
the groups of the different teacher-student combinations.
Field
dependent students would be expected to obtain a significantly higher
mean score with field dependent than with field independent teachers
due to their compatible cognitive style characteristics.
Packer and
Bain's (1978) study supports the notion that a cognitive style match
between teachers and students leads to higher student achievement than
a cognitive style mismatch.
Wltkin e_t a l . (1977) , however, discussed what may be considered
negative consequences of matching students and teachers according
to cognitive styles and showed why a cognitive style mismatch may lead
to better student achievement than a cognitive style match.
Among
the reasons cited, they pointed out that field independent teachers
are better at structuring learning material than field dependent
teachers and since field dependent students need structure for most
effective learning, these students may achieve more with field independ­
ent than with field dependent teachers.
Also, field dependent students
may benefit more from the field independent teacher's use of criticism
and use of feedback as a source of structuring.
Chapter 3
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
INSTRUMENTS
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Cell Chemistry
Test C ref erred to as the CCT) were-.the instruments used in data
collection.
The Group Embedded Figures Test
The GEFT was used as a test of field dependence-independence
cognitive style.
Teachers and students were classified either as field
dependent or field independent according to their scores on the test.
The test writers suggest that with adjustment of time limits and test
directions, the test can be made into "a flexible instrument for groups
widely diversified in age and background" (Witkin et al. 1971, p. 28).
The GEFT consists of three sections:
an unscored practice section
with seven simple items and two sections each with nine more difficult
items that are both timed and scored.
test is 0-18.
The range of raw scores on the
For each item on the test subjects are shown a complex
figure and are asked to identify a simple form which is hidden in it.
The test writers state that the second and third sections of the test
are matched closely for item difficulty, discriminative indices and the
frequency with which the simple forms are present in the complex figures.
Within each section the items are in ascending order of difficulty
(Witkin et a l ., 1971, p. 27).
Two minutes are allowed for completion of
the first section and five minutes for each of the second and third
sections.
15
The writers of the GEFT reported a correlation of 0.82 for the
two scored sections using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.
Denson
(1977) estimated the reliability of the GEFT by several methods and
obtained a value of 0.81 for the two scored sections after making an
adjustment with the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula.
In the present
study, a reliability coefficient of 0.83 was calculated with the use
of the Kuder-Richardso^Q formula.
From computations of item-total correlations for the GEFT and
a factor analytic study, Denson (1977) concluded that the GEFT was a
unidimensional measure and in general a usable instrument.
After
examining the score distribution on the GEFT, Denson suggested that the
upper and lower quarters be used for the formation of extreme groups
since there appeared to be a satisfactory separation between these
portions of the distribution.
In the present study, in order to get
maximum contrast between the groups and to keep each group at a reason­
able size, individuals who scored from zero to six points on the GEFT
were classified as field dependent and those who scored from twelve to
eighteen were classified as field independent.
The test was administered
according to the procedure outlined in the manual (Witkin et_ al., 1971
pp. 27 and 28).
The Cell Chemistry Test (CCT)
The unit on "Cell Chemistry" was chosen because most of the
information included in it was not likely to be encountered by students
outside of the classroom setting.
This unfamiliarity with the unit
helped to ensure that student achievement occurred as a result of class­
room exposure to it.
17
The CCT was constructed by the writer and administered to students
as both the pretest and posttest.
A "Table of Specifications" (Appendix
D) outlining the content of and objectives for the unit was first pre­
pared and the test constructed accordingly.
Fifty objective type test
questions were designed mainly to test students' abilities at the higher
cognitive levels according to Bloom's Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956).
was validated by a panel of experts (Appendix E.)
The test
Internal consistency
estimates calculated with the use of the Kuder-Richardso^Q formula
for the pretest and posttest were 0.70 and 0.82 respectively.
POPULATION AND SAMPLE OF THE STUDY
The study population consisted of tenth grade biology teachers
and their students using the textbook, Biology:
Living Systems (Oram,
1976) in the public schools of East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana,
during the 1979-1980 school year.
The final study sample consisted
of 61 field independent and 109 field dependent students taught by five
field independent teachers, and 92 field independent and 87 field
dependent students taught by five field dependent teachers.
PROCEDURE
After permission for the study to be conducted was given by the
East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and the Louisiana State University
Committee on the Use of Humans and Animals as Research Subjects, all
biology teachers using the textbook, Biology:
Living Systems (Oram,
1976) in East Baton Rouge Parish Schools were invited to a meeting.
At
this meeting the study was explained and the teachers' participation in
it was sought.
After they had asked questions, the teachers signed and
18
returned the "Experiment Sign-Up Form" (Appendix F) indicating that
they understood what was involved in the study and were willing to
participate.
The GEFT was then administered to them according to the
format set out in the manual (Witkin et a l . 1971, pp. 27 and 28) and
five field dependent and five field independent teachers were selected
as the sample on the basis of their extreme scores.
After parental permission was obtained for student participation
in the study (Appendix G ) , the GEFT was administered to the students
during regular biology class sessions.
The writer adminif
red the
GEFT to all of the 23 classes of students in separate class sessions.
Of a total of 545 students who took the test, 241 were classified as
field dependent and 175 as field independent.
The CCT was administered
to the students as the pretest when each teacher was ready to teach the
unit on "Cell Chemistry".
After copies of the test (Appendix I) had
been distributed, test directions were given and the students were
allowed one class period of 50-55 minutes to complete the test.
Each
teacher was then given a copy of the Table of Specifications and asked
to teach the unit according to the content and objectives outlined in it.
The CCT was administered to the students as the posttest when each
teacher had completed the unit.
The teachers were not allowed to see the
test until after the students had completed the posttest.
All pretest
and posttest administrations were done by the writer or her husband.
A total of 67 subjects, 22 field independent and 45 field
dependent were lost due to absences, transfers, dropouts, suspensions,
and early graduation.
In many cases, the writer returned to the schools
the day following the administration of either the pretest or posttest
to give the test to students who were.absent at the first administration.
19
The final number of field dependent and field independent students
providing both pretest and posttest scores was 196 and 153 respectively.
Of this number, 61 field independent and 109 field dependent students
were taught by field independent teachers and 92 field independent and
87 field dependent students were taught by field dependent teachers.
The two levels of cognitive style (field dependence and field
independence) of teachers and of students were combined into a 2x2
factorial design.
The analysis of covariance was used to determine
whether there were significant differences in achievement between stu­
dents whose cognitive styles were similar to those of their teachers
and students whose styles were different from those of their teachers.
The four field independent-field dependent
teacher-student groups
used in the study are shown in the diagram below.
Teachers
Students
FI = Field Independent
FD = Field Dependent
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data used in this investigation were the students* scores
on an achievement test on a unit on Cell Chemistry which was ad­
ministered to students as both a pretest and posttest.
The data
were analyzed to determine whether biology students whose cognitive
styles were similar to the cognitive styles of their teachers
achieved significantly higher mean scores than biology students whose
styles were different from those of their teachers.
The analysis
of covariance was used with the pretest as the covariable and the
posttest as the dependent variable.
The F-test was applied to
determine whether the differences between group means were significant.
RESULTS OF THE CELL CHEMISTRY TEST
Table 1 shows the distribution of student scores on the pretest.
The highest possible score on the test was 50 and the lowest possible
score was zero.
Sixty-three (18.05 percent) of the 349 students
scored less than 13 points which is approximately 25 percent of the
total possible score on the test.
Three hundred twenty-four (92.84
percent) of the students scored less than 25 points which is 50
percent of the total possible score, and only one student (0.29 percent)
scored more than 38 points which is approximately 75 percent of the
total possible score.
20
21
Table 1
Distribution of Student Scores on the
Cell Chemistry Test (Pretest)
Frequency
Cummulative
Frequency
Percent
Cummulative
Percent
1
1
0.287
0.287
5
3
4
0.860
1.146
6
2
6
0.573
1.719
7
1
7
0.287
2.006
8
7
14
2.006
4.011
9
6
20
1.719
5.731
10
11
31
3.152
8.883
11
10
41
2.865
11.748
12
22
63
6.304
18.052
13
26
89
7.450
25.501
14
21
110
6.017
31.519
15
24
134
6.877
38.395
16
23
157
6.590
44.986
17
30
187
8.596
53.582
18
23
210
6.590
60.172
19
24
234
6.877
67.049
20
27
261
7.736
74.785
21
23
284
6.590
81.375
22
13
297
3.725
85.100
23
14
311
4.011
89.112
24
13
324
3.725
92.837
25
6
330
1.719
94.556
26
6
336
1.719
96.275
27
3
339
0.860
97.135
28
5
344
1.433
98.567
29
3
347
0.860
99.427
30
1
348
0.287
99.713
39
1
349
0.287
100.000
The distribution of student scores on the posttest is shown in
Table 2.
Thirty^-seven (10.60 percent) of the 349 students scored
less than 13 points which is approximately 25 percent of the total
possible score on the test.
Two hundred forty-three (69.63 percent)
of the students scored less than 25 points which is 50 percent of
the total possible score, and thirteen students (3.73 percent) scored
more than 38 points which is approximately 75 percent of the total
score.
23
Table 2
Distribution of Student Scores on the
Cell Chemistry Test (Posttest)
Frequency
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
1
5
7
9
15
8
14
16
15
20
26
17
14
23
25
17
11
16
15
15
9
7
9
5
4
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
5
2
1
1
1
Cummulative
Frequency
Percent
1
6
13
22
37
45
59
75
90
110
136
153
167
190
215
232
243
259
274
289
298
305
314
319
323
326
328
331
333
336
337
339
344
346
347
348
349
0.287
1.433
2.006
2.579
4.298
2.292
4.011
4.585
4.298
5.731
7.450
4.871
4.011
6.590
7.163
4.871
3.152
4.585
4.298
4.298
2.579
2.006
2.579
1.433
1.146
0.860
0.573
0.860
0.573
0.860
0.287
0.573
1.433
0.573
0.287
0.287
0.287
Cummulative
Percent
0.287
1.719
3.725
6.304
10.602
12.894
16.905
21.490
25.788
31.519
38.968
43.840
47.851
54.441
61.605
66.476
69.628
74.212
78.510
82.808
85.387
87.393
89.971
91.404
92.550
93.410
93.983
94.842
95.415
96.275
96.562
97.135
98.567
99.140
99.427
99.713
100.000
24
The unadjusted means, standard deviations, and standard error
of the means for the pretest and posttest are shown in Table 3.
These values are for the total of 349 field independent and field
dependent students who completed the tests.
The mean for the post­
test is observed to be higher than that for the pretest.
Table 3
Unadjusted Means, Standard Deviations,
and Standard Errors of the Means for
the Pretest and Posttest Scores of
Students on the CCT
Test
N
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Standard Error
of Means
Pretest
349
17.18
5.13
0.28
Posttest
349
21.43
7.33
0.39
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR THE FOUR
FIELD DEPENDENT-FIELD INDEPENDENT
TEACHER-STUDENT GROUPS
USED IN THE STUDY
Table 4 shows the analysis of covariance of the raw scores for
the four field dependent-field independent teacher-student groups which
were used in the study.
25
Table 4
Analysis of Covariance of Raw Scores on the CCT for
the Four Field Dependent-Field Independent
Teacher-Student Groups
df
Sum of
Squares
348
18677.67
Teacher
1
6.91
Student
1
Source
Total
Teacher x Student
Error
Pretest (Govariable)
Mean
Squares
F
Prob. > F
6.91
6.26
.0128
3244.25
3244.25
42.65
.0001
1
344
133.94
11681.39
133.94
33.96
1.71
.1924
1
3611.17
3611.17
In Table 4 the teacher, student, and teacher x student variables
represent the treatment variable.
The null hypothesis (the hypothesis
of no difference between the mean achievement scores of students of
field dependent and field independent teachers) was rejected at the
.01 level, indicating that there was a significant difference in
students’ scores for the field independent and field dependent teachers.
The null hypothesis (the hypothesis of no difference between the
means of the scores of field independent and field dependent students)
was rejected at the .01 level, indicating that there was a significant
difference in scores of the field dependent and field independent
students.
The null hypothesis (the hypothesis of no teacher-student inter­
action) was retained at the .05 level.
This indicated that there was
no significant teacher-student interaction.
This lack of teacher-
student interaction is illustrated in Figure 1.
Field independent
students were observed to have made uniformly higher scores than
field dependent students with both field independent and field
Adjusted Means of Students'
Scores on the CCT
dependent teachers.
25
FI Students
24
23
22
FD Students
21
20
19
18
FI
FD
Teachers' Cognitive Style
Figure 1. Interaction Between Students' and Teachers' Cognitive
Styles on the CCT Scores (FD = Field Dependent; FI = Field
Independent),
Null Hypotheses Tested
The data relating to the four hypotheses stated in the study are
given below.
Table 5 shows the adjusted means for the four field
dependent-field independent teacher-student groups used in the study
and Table 6 gives the level of significance of the difference between
pairs of group means.
Hypothesis 1 was stated as follows.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent and field dependent students taught by field
independent teachers.
Table 5 shows the adjusted mean to be 24.22 for the field indepen­
dent students and 20.74 for the field dependent students.
The differ­
ence between these means was great enough to justify rejection of the
null hypothesis.
The probability that a significant difference exists
between these two means is significant at the .01 level in favor of
the field independent students.
Therefore, at the end of the unit
field independent students obtained a significantly higher mean score
than field dependent students when both groups of students were taught
by field independent teachers.
28
Table 5
Adjusted Means of the Scores on the CCT for the Four Field Dependent (FD)
Field Independent (FX) Teacher-Student Groups
Group
No.
Teacher
Student
Adjusted
Means
Standard Error
of Means
1
FI
FI
24.22
0.75
2
FI
FD
20.74
0.57
3
FD
FI
23.44
0.63
4
FD
FD
18.28
0.62
Table 6
Levels of Significance of Differences Between Pairs of Adjusted
Means of Scores on the CCT for the Four Field Dependent (FD)
Field Independent (FI) Teacher-Student Groups
Pairs of Groups
(Teacher/Student)
Mean
Differences
Probability of
Significance
FI/FI vs FI/FD
3.48
.0002
FD/FI vs FD/FD
5.16
.0001
FI/FI vs FD/FI
0.78
.4219
FI/FD vs FD/FD
2.46
.0036
29
Hypothesis 2 was stated as follows.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent and field dependent students taught by field
dependent teachers.
Table 5 shows the adjusted mean to be 23.44 for the field indepen­
dent students and 18.28 for the field dependent students.
The differ­
ence between these means was great enough to justify rejection of the
null hypothesis.
The probability that a significant difference exists
between these two means is significant at the .01 level in favor of
the field independent students.
Therefore, at the end of the unit
field independent students were found to achieve a significantly higher
mean score than field dependent students when both groups of students
were taught by field dependent teachers.
Hypothesis 3 was stated as follows.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field independent students taught by field independent teachers
and field independent students taught by field dependent teachers.
Table 5 shows the adjusted mean to be 24.22 for the former group
and 23.44 for the latter group.
The difference between these means
was not great enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.
Therefore, at the end of the unit field independent students taught by
field independent teachers did not achieve a significantly higher mean
score than field independent students taught by field dependent
teachers.
30
Hypothesis 4 was stated as follows.
There is no significant difference in the achievement of
field dependent students taught by field dependent teachers and
field dependent students taught by field independent teachers.
Table 5 shows the adjusted mean to be 18.28 for the former group
and 20.74 for the latter group.
The difference between these means
was great enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis.
The
probability that a significant difference exists between these two
means is significant at the .01 level in favor of the field dependent
students taught by the field independent teachers.
At the end of the
unit field dependent students taught by field independent teachers
achieved a significantly higher mean score than field dependent students
taught by field dependent teachers.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A significant difference was found between the mean achievement
scores of students of field independent and field dependent teachers
in favor of the field independent teachers.
A significant difference
was also found between the mean achievement scores of field independent
and field dependent students in favor of the field independent students,
but no teacher-student interaction was found to have occurred.
Neither a cognitive style match nor mismatch resulted in signifi­
cantly higher achievement of field independent students, but a cognitive
style mismatch resulted in significantly higher achievement of field
dependent students.
Significant differences were found to exist between
group means for three of the four hypotheses which were tested.
Field
independent students achieved significantly higher mean scores than
field dependent students with both field independent and field
dependent teachers.
There was no significant difference between the
mean achievement scores of field independent students taught by field
independent teachers and field independent students taught by field
dependent teachers.
Field dependent students taught by field indepen­
dent teachers obtained a significantly higher mean score than field
dependent students taught by field dependent teachers.
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF CONTEXT OF THE STUDY,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The study was designed to investigate student achievement in
biology in terms of the field dependent-independent cognitive styles
of students and teachers.
The study population consisted of tenth
grade biology teachers and their students using the textbook Biology:
Living Systems (Oram, 1976) in the public schools of East Baton Rouge
Parish, Louisiana, during the 1979-1980 school year.
The GEFT was
administered to the teachers and students as a measure of their field
dependence-independence.
The final sample for the study consisted of
61 field independent and 109 field dependent students taught by five
field independent teachers, and 92 field independent and 87 field
dependent students taught by five field dependent teachers.
The students were pretested and posttested on the "Cell Chemistry"
unit in biology that was taught by the teachers.
Test on the unit was constructed by the writer.
The Cell Chemistry
The data were analyzed
using the analysis of covariance in order to compensate for any initial
differences in achievement between the groups.
The F-test was used to
test for significant differences in the means of the scores of the four
field dependent-independent
teacher-student group combinations.
32
33
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results of the analysis of the achievement test
data, significant differences in mean scores of students were found for
the field independent and field dependent teachers in favor of the field
independent teachers and for the field independent and field dependent
students in favor of the field independent students.
No student-
teacher interaction was found to have occurred, and the field independent
students obtained significantly higher mean scores than field dependent
students with both the field independent and field dependent teachers.
Since field independent students achieved equally well with both
field independent and field dependent teachers it was concluded that for
certain types of abstract scientific material like the unit material,
the cognitive style of the teacher was not important in the cognitive
achievement of field independent students.
Teacher cognitive style was
important in the achievement of field dependent students, but it was a
teacher-student cognitive style mismatch rather than a match that resulted
in the significantly higher achievement of these students.
DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF CONTEXT
OF THE STUDY
Packer and Bain (1978) conducted a study which is most closely
related to this study and to which the results of this study can best
be compared.
Before comparisons are made, however, Packer and Bain’s
34
different methodology will be briefly outlined.
The sample used in
their study consisted of a total of 32 teacher-student matched and
mismatched cognitive style pairs.
Sixteen pairs were first formed
and described by the writers as "the best possible pairs in terms of
extremeness of scores and degree of match or mismatch within pairs."
A second set of 16 pairs including some "middle-range" scorers was
formed from the remaining subjects and Packer and Bain stated that
the results of the study relating to field dependence-independence
could be generalized only to the 16 most extreme pairs.
The teachers
used in the sample were final year trainee mathematics teachers and
the students were first year psychology students *
The period of
contact between the teachers and students was the very short time of
30-40 minutes which was considered to be sufficient for a mathematical
concept to be taught.
As in the present study, Packer and Bain (1978) found field
independent students to achieve a significantly higher mean score than
field dependent students with field independent teachers.
In the present
study, field independent students were not only found to achieve a sig­
nificantly higher mean score than field dependent students with field
independent teachers but also with field dependent teachers.
This lat­
ter finding is different from that of Packer and Bain and contrary to
theoretical expectations.
Packer and Bain found no significant difference
to exist between the achievement of field independent and field depen­
dent students taught by field dependent teachers.
They, however,
reported that if their results were stated alternately in terms of the
effects of different teachers, field dependent teachers were signifi­
cantly more effective than field independent teachers with field
35
dependent students.
On the basis of the current literature, it was predicted in the
present study that there would be greater student achievement when
the cognitive styles of students were similar to those of their
teachers than when students' cognitive styles were different from those
of their teachers.
It is not totally surprising, however, that there
was a greater achievement of field dependent students with field
independent rather than with field dependent teachers.
It was previous­
ly pointed out in the present study that field independent teachers are
more capable of structuring materials than field dependent teachers and
that this may prove to be advantageous to field dependent students who
are less capable of structuring materials for themselves.
There are
also other teaching strategies used by field independent but not by
field dependent teachers which may also prove advantageous to the
achievement of field dependent students.
These include the field in­
dependent teacher's use of criticism when students perform below capacity
and use of feedback as a source of structuring.
It is likely that
field independent students were able to achieve equally well with field
dependent as with field independent teachers because of their ability
to structure materials for themselves.
IMPLICATIONS
In the present study field independent students were found to learn
certain types of abstract scientific materials equally well regardless
of the cognitive style of their teachers.
On the other hand, higher
achievement resulted when field dependent students were taught by field
independent than by field dependent teachers.
This finding suggests,
therefore, that whereas field independent students may be taught by,
and achieve equally well with, either field independent or field
dependent teachers, field dependent students are more successfully
taught by field independent teachers.
The type of material being studied, together with the ability or
inability of the teachers and students to structure the material, seem
to be important factors in student achievement.
There may also be
other features of a cognitive style mismatch which may favor the higher
achievement of field dependent students with field independent teachers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of this study the following recommendations for
further research are made.
1.
This study should be repeated and the affective aspects of a
cognitive style match or mismatch observed.
2.
Studies analyzing the planning and teaching strategies and
other behaviors of teachers as a result of their field dependentindependent cognitive style need to be done.
3.
Investigation of the influence of field dependence-
independence in other less abstract subject areas such as the social
studies, where field dependent students are expected to be the better
achievers, need to be carried out.
REFERENCES
Anderson, William L . , "A Study to Determine the Correlation Between
Academic Achievement and Field Dependence-Independence in Third,
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grade Pupils” , Dissertation Abstracts
International, 37 (1977), 5584A (Brigham Young University, 1976).
Biggs, J.B., D. Fitzgerald and Sonia M. Atkinson.
''Convergent and
Divergent Abilities in Children and Teachers' Ratings of Competence
and Certain Classroom Behaviors” , British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 41: 277-86, 1971.
Bloom, Benjamin S. ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
David McKay Company, Inc., 1956.
New York:
Denson, Teri A . , Three Measures of Cognitive Style:
Characteristics,
Factor Structure, and Implications for Researchers. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
61st, New York, April 4-8, 1977, ERIC Document ED 137 344, April,
1977.
DiStefano, J.J., "Interpersonal Perceptions of Field Independent and
Field Dependent Teachers and Students", Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31 (1970), 463-464A (Cornell University, 1969).
Doob, Leonard W . , "Behavior and Grammatical Style", Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 56: 398-401, 1958.
Dubois, Thomas E. and Walter Cohen.
"Relationship Between Measures of
Psychological Differentiation and Intellectual Ability", Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 31: 411-16, 1970.
Dunn, Rita S., and Kenneth J. Dunn.
"Learning Styles/Teaching Styles:
Should They...Can They...Be Matched?", Educational Leadership,
36: 238-44, January, 1979.
Duvall, Nancy S., "Field Articulation and the Repression-Sensitization
Dimension in Perception and Memory", Dissertation Abstracts Inter­
national , 30 (1970), 3864B (University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 1969).
Ferrell, J.G., "The Differential Performance of Lower Class, Preschool,
Negro Children as a Function of the Sex of E, Sex of S, Reinforce­
ment Condition, and the Level of Field Dependence", Dissertation
Abstracts International, 32 (1971), 2028-2029B (University of Southern
Mississippi, 1971).
Fitzgibbons, David, Leo Goldberger, and Morris Eagle. "Field Dependence
and Memory for Incidental Material", Perceptual and Motor Skills,
21:
743-749, 1965.
37
Hunt, Dennis and Bikkar S. Randhawa.
"Relationship Between and Among
Cognitive Variables and Achievement in Computational Science",
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33: 921-8, 1973.
James, C.D.R., "A Cognitive Style Approach to Teacher-Pupil Interaction
and the Academic Performance of Black Children", Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Rutgers University, 1973.
(Original not seen,
cited by Witkin, Herman A., C. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough and
P. W. Cox.
"Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles
and Their Educational Implications", Review of Educational Research,
47: 1-64, Winter, 1977.)
Konstadt, Norma and Elaine Forman.
"Field Dependence and External
Directedness", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1: 490-93, 1965.
Koran, Mary L., Richard E. Snow and Frederick J. McDonald.
"Teacher
Aptitude and Observational Learning of a Teaching Skill", Journal
of Educational Psychology, 62:
219-28, 1971.
Moore, C. A., "Styles of Teacher Behavior Under Simulated Teaching
Conditions", Dissertation Abstracts International, 34 (1973),
3149-3150A (Stanford University, 1973).
Nebelkopf, Edwin B. and Albert S. Dreyer.
"Continuous-Discontinuous
Concept Attainment As a Function of Individual Differences in
Cognitive Style", Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36: 655-62, 1973.
Oram, Raymond F., Biology: Living Systems. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill Pub. Co., 1976.
Packer, Janis and John D. Bain.
"Cognitive Style and Teacher-Student
Compatibility", Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 864-71,
1978.
Pemberton, C. L., "The Closure Factors Related to Temperament",
Journal of Personality, 21: 159-175, 1952.
P e m e y , Lawrence R . , "The Relationship of Field Dependence-Field
Independence with Academic Achievement", Dissertation Abstracts
International, 32 (1971), 1342A (Case Western Reserve University,
1971) .
Randolph, Lawrence C., "A Study of the Effects of Praise, Criticism and
Failure on the Problem Solving Performance of Field-Dependent and
Field-Independent Individuals", Dissertation Abstracts International
32 (1971), 3014-3015B (New York University, 1971).
Renzi, N. B . , "A Study of Some Effects of Field Dependence-Independence
and Feedback on Performance Achievement", Dissertation Abstracts
International, 35 (1974), 2059A (Hofstra University, 1974).
39
Ruble, Diane N. and Charles Y. Nakamura.
’’Task Orientation Versus
Social Orientation in Young Children and Their Attention to
Relevant Social Cues'1, Child Development, 43: 471-80, 1972.
Saracho, Olivia N., "The Relationship of the Hatch of Teachers’Students’ Cognitive Style to Teachers’ Perception of Students'
Competence", Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (1978)t
2738A (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1978).
Schwen, T. M . , "The Effect of Cognitive Styles and Instructional
Sequences on Learning a Hierarchical Task", Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31 (1970), 2797-2798A (Indiana University, 1970).
Shows, William D., "Psychological Differentiation of the A-B Dimension:
A Dyadic Interaction Hypothesis", Dissertation Abstracts. 28 (1968),
3885B (Duke University, 1967).
Stein, Franklin., "Consistency of Cognitive, Interest, and Personality
Variables with Academic Mastery: A study of Field-DependenceIndependence, Verbal Comprehension, Self-Perception, and Vocational
Interest in Relation to Academic Performance Among Male Juniors
Attending an Urban University", Dissertation Abstracts, 29 (1968),
1429A (New York University, 1968).
Stidham, Ann B., "A Comparative Study of Factually Set and Conceptually
Set College Learners", Dissertation Abstracts, 27 (1967), 2899A
(The University of Tennessee, 1966).
Witkin, Herman A., R. B. Dyk, H. F. Faterson, D. R. Goodenough and
S. A. Karp. Psychological Differentiation. New York: John Wiley
And Sons, 1962.
Witkin, Herman A., C. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough and P. W. Cox.
"FieldDependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational
Implications", Review of Educational Research, 47:
1-64, Winter, 1977.
Witkin, Herman A., Philip K. Oltman, Evelyn Raskin and Stephen A. Karp.
A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.
Wu, Jing-Jyi., "Cognitive Style and Task Performance-A Study of Student
Teachers", Dissertation Abstracts, 29 (1968), 176A (University of
Minnesota, 1967).
APPENDICES
40
APPENDIX A
P. 0. Box 22420
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70893
May 4, 1979.
Dr. Donald Hoover
Director of Research and
Evaluation
East Baton Rouge Parish
Schools
P. 0. Box 2950
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70821
Dear Dr. Hoover:
I wish to request permission to conduct a research project this Fall
using tenth grade students enrolled in East Baton Rouge Parish Schools.
The purpose of the study is to determine if biology students whose
cognitive styles are similar to the cognitive styles of their teachers
achieve more than biology students whose cognitive styles are different
from those of their teachers.
All biology teachers engaged in teaching
a selected unit during the fall semester of 1979 will be administered
the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to determine their field dependenceindependence.
An equal number of field dependent and field independent
teachers will be selected.
The GEFT will then be administered to certain
classes of students taught by the selected teachers to determine their
field dependence-independence.
Behavioral objectives for the selected
unit will be made based on the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the
cognitive domain.
A pretest on the unit will be administered to all
students and at the end of the unit a posttest will be given.
The data will be analyzed to determine whether student achievement
varies according to the cognitive styles of the students and teachers.
Dr. Donald Hoover
Director of Research and Evaluation
East Baton Rouge Parish Schools
The time requirements for the study are indicated below.
Group Embedded Figures Test --------------------- 30 minutes
P r e t e s t -------------------— ---
— ----
45 minutes
P o s t t e s t ---------------------------- — ----------- 45 minutes
T o t a l ----------------
2 hours
This study should be the first step toward answering the question
of whether a matching of cognitive style leads to better student
achievement and should make a significant contribution to the research
literature.
I hope that you find it possible to allow me to conduct
the study.
Sincerely yours
Pauline E. Jolly
Graduate Student
Dept, of Education L.S.U.
Dr. Barbara M. Strawitz
Major Professor
43
APPENDIX B
C L Y D E H. L I N D S E Y ,
S
u per in ten d en t
P. O. BOX 2 9 5 0
August 20, 1979
Ms. Pauline E. Jolly
c/o Dr. Barbara M. Strawitz
Major Professor
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Dear Ms. Jolly:
Please let this serve as authorization for you to conduct
your study. I have contacted each principal involved and they have
given their approval.
If I can be of further assistant to you, please let me
know.
Donald L. Hoover, Director
Research and Program Evaluations
DLH/pmb
PH. (504) 926-2790
44
APPENDIX C
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Baton Rouge Campus
From:
Committee on Humans and Animals as Research Subjects
To:
Vice Chancellor for Advanced Studies and Research
David Boyd Hall
Re:
Proposal of
Entitled
Pauline Jolly & Barbara Strawitz, Department of Education
Principal Investigator
Student Achievement in Biology in Terms of Cognitive
Styles of Students and T e a c h e r s _______________________
This is to certify that a quorum of the Committee on Humans and Animals
as Research Subjects reviewed the above proposal. The Committee evaluated
the procedures of the proposal with appropriate guidelines established for
activities supported by federal funds involving as subjects humans and/or
animals.
Recommendation of Committee _________ APPROVED______________________
Comments:
As per your request, enclosed is your booklet.
A review of this proposal by the Committee will be accomplished at
least on an annual basis and at more frequent intervals depending on the
element of risk.
* L U - <§•» < § 7
DATE
9/24/79________
I
I °A
Chairman, Committee on U s e ^ f
Humans and Animals as Research
Subjects
.
45
3eh avtaral Area_
knowledge
Percencage of
Emohasis
107
Comprehension
Applica­
tion
A n a ly s is
,
Evaluation
307,
20
3
<0<u
—
107,
A
3) 3
y 3
-a u
u •—
o
u ca-3
COO 3 e
CQCM
o
a <n
os
uo
30 O
a
03
ca 2
CO^
«4
It i
3)
y
3 S
3 =
3. 2
<0
Cl*
O
MU
Wui O
j oh
2 S
- 3
5
<a
■v
.aup
at
3
3 43
44-U>
ca
—c
344
V00
u
jj
to
.3,-3
!i!
° * “2
o 3
UQJ
>•
>r=Hca >* W
w ca
— 341 — >
m 'j
s
20a.
o
—
* <XJQ
Content
au
X '443
§§■
<5w o
I. Energy 'feeds of Calls
Activation energy and cne
conversion of potential
energy Co kinetic energy
3. E n z y m e s a n d c o e n z y m e sand
their function
C. Factors arreccing enzyme
activity
"7FI atf-aup cycle
Glucose - cive cniet energy
Laboratory Sessions
A. Chemicai nature of enzymes
T — CSaFacEe r x s i i c T 1<5T“ STTZ^ffllEnr
X
X
Laboratory Sessions
A.
Factors influencing the
rate of yeast respiration
B.
Ceil energy
Eli. Photosynthesis
Leaf structure and guard cell
activity
Requirements tor photosyntheais
C.
Autotrophs and hecerotropns
~3~.
Absorption spectrum or
chlorophyll
uignc and dark reactions
_ F P r o d u c t s of pnotosynthesxa
Laboratory Sessions
A. Leaf anatomy and leaf stomata
iniluencing cne rate or
ohotosvnthesis
Chloroolasc oiemenc analvsis
Carbon dioxide and phocosvnchesis
X
X
X
X
X | Xi
X I
U3 L
i
If
<
— C
-3 0
<c y
|X
source
II. Cellular Respiration
comoustxon and resflirdcioh
“37* Glycolysis (pyruvic acio
formation)
C. Active acetic acxa formation
~
Krebs cycle
Accual energy release (oxi-~
dative phosphorylation) and
formation of ATP
T!
Anaerobic respiracxon fermentation
w
•*- y -
—>
APPENDIX E
PANEL OF EXPERTS
Dr. Sam Adams
Professor of Education
Louisiana State University
Dr. Jerry W. Andrews
Associate Professor of Education
Louisiana State University
Dr. Kenneth C. Corkum
Professor of Zoology and Physiology
Chairman, Department of Zoology and Physiology
Louisiana State University
Dr. Spencer J. Maxcy
Associate Professor of Education
Louisiana State University
Dr. Fred M. Smith
Professor of Education
Director, Graduate Division of Education
Louisiana State University
Dr. Barbara M. Strawitz
Professor of Education
Louisiana State University
APPENDIX F
Date: ______________________
EXPERIMENT SIGN-UP FORM
My signature, on this sheet, by which I volunteer to participate
in the experiment titled Student Achievement in Biology in Terms
of Cognitive Styles of Students and Teachers_____________________
conducted by:
_______Pauline E. Jolly
_______
Experimenter
indicates that I understand that all subjects in the project are
volunteers, that I can withdraw at any time from the experiment,
that I have been or will be informed as to the nature of the
experiment, that the data I provide will be anonymous and my iden­
tity will not be revealed without my permission, and that my
performance in this experiment may by used for additional approved
projects.
Finally, I shall be given an opportunity to ask questions
prior to the start of the experiment and after my participation is
complete.
Subject’s signature
48
APPENDIX G
To Whom It May Concern:
As parent and/or guardian of ________________________________
studentfs name
I grant permission to Pauline E. Jolly to administer a test of
cognitive style and a biology test to this student.
I understand that the information obtained will be used in
a research project concerning the determination of student
achievement in relation to the cognitive styles of students and
teachers, that all information will be treated as confidential,
and that no name will be mentioned in reports of this research.
Signature
Date
APPENDIX
H
Grade 10 Biology Test
Cell Chemistry
Directions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Read each statement and the choices carefully and
decide on the best answer.
On the separate answer
sheet blacken the letter for the choice you select.
Make your marks heavy.
If you make a mistake
completely erase the answer you wish to change.
The activation energy needed for burning a substance in a
test tube is supplied by
A.
enzymes.
B.
ATP.
C.
heat.
D.
glucose.
Enzyme activity is affected by
A.
changes in temperature.
B.
chemical inhibitors.
C.
substrate concentration.
D.
all of the above.
Organisms which carry out photosynthesis are described as
A.
autotrophic.
B.
heterotrophic.
C.
saprophytic.
D.
chemosynthetic.
Combustion is different from respiration in that
A.
heat and kinetic energy are produced from combustion
while heat and light are produced from respiration.
B.
combustion proceeds more slowly than respiration.
C.
oxgen is used up in respiration but not in combustion.
D.
heat and light are produced from combustion while heat
and kinetic energy are produced from respiration.
Question 5 relates to the following graph which shows the activity
of an enzyme.
80 Relative Rate
of enzyme
activity
60 -
30:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PH
5.
6.
7.
The enzyme which is graphed above will work best in
A.
a neutral medium.
B.
an acid medium.
C.
a salty medium.
D.
an alkaline medium.
Which of the following is not correct?
A.
Coenzymes are as specific as enzymes.
B.
Coenzymes work with enzymes to activate reactions.
C.
Coenzymes consist of vitamins and vitamin fragments.
D.
Coenzymes act as transfer agents during chemical reactions.
The essential feature of an oxidative exergonic reaction such
as respiration is the
A.
transfer of energy from high energy phosphate bonds to
glucose.
B.
release of heat energy.
C.
transfer of energy from glucose to high energy phosphate
bonds.
D.
use of ATP in the early phase of the reaction.
8.
9.
The stomata of a leaf which has been placed in strong salt
solution will be
A.
opened.
B.
closed.
C.
flabby.
D.
turgid.
Cellular respiration is essential to living organism because
it is a process that
A.
warms the environment by releasing all of its energy as waste.
B.
is primarily a gas exchange process only.
C.
releases 0
to the environment.
2
D.
releases biologically useful energy.
Questions 10 and 11 relate to the diagram below showing energy
conversion.
Radiant energy
10.
11.
A
--------- ^
B
Chemical ene r g y _______^ Bond energy
of glucose
of ATP
The name of the process that best describes the conversion
of energy indicated by the arrow labelled A is
A.
respiration.
B.
photosynthesis.
C.
fermentation.
D.
glycolysis.
The name of the process that best describes the conversion of
energy indicated by the arrow labelled B is
A.
photosynthesis
B.
phosphorylation
C.
respiration
D.
glycolysis
12.
13.
14.
15.
The process of photosynthesis
A.
is a source of organic matter.
B.
is a primary source of
C.
provides free oxygen.
D.
all of the above.
energy for living things.
When a leaf was transferred from one solution to another the
cytoplasm was observed to shrink away from the
cell wall and
the vacuoles got smaller.
The second solution
was probably,
A.
of the same concentration as the first.
B.
much weaker than the first.
C.
more concentrated than the first.
D.
slightly less concentrated than the first.
In cellular oxidation of glucose (C6H^2®6+ ^ 2----- ^ 6CO 2+
6H2 O + Energy) the energy which results from the reaction is
derived from the
A.
chemical bonds in CgH-pOg.
B.
enzymes which catalyze the reaction.
C.
breakdown of the O 2 molecules.
D.
concentrated molecules hitting one another and giving off heat.
Which of the following best describes energy flow?
A.
Chemical ------- ^ Radiant
^ Kinetic
------- > Heat
B.
Radiant ------- ^ Chemical------- } Kinetic ------- ^ Heat
C.
Kinetic
------- ^
Radiant
> Chemical -------> Heat
D.
Radiant ------- >
Kinetic
Chemical ------ > Heat
Questions 16-18 relate to the experiment described below.
Brom-thymol blue solution is an indicator that turns yellow
when enough CO 2 is added.
Two test tubes were filled with bromthymol blue. A student blew air through a straw into both tubes
until the solution changed to yellow.
Elodea plants were placed
into test tube 2 and both tubes were corked as is shown in the drawing.
The tubes were exposed to sunlight for a few hours after which it was
observed that the solution in test tube 2 had changed to blue while
that in test tube 1 remained yellow.
Brom-thymol
yellow
16.
17.
The change in color from yellow to blue in test tube 2 but not
in test
tube 1 resulted since
A.
the
plants used up carbon
dioxide in the
light.
B.
the
plants used up oxygen
in the light.
C.
brom-thymol yellow changes to blue in the light.
D.
the plants gave off carbon dioxide in the light.
Test tube 1
A.
should also have been fitted up with some Elodea plants.
B.
was not needed in the experiment.
C.
was used as a control to show whether any other factors
caused a change in color.
D.
none of the above.
18.
19.
If the tubes had originally been placed in the dark the bromthymol yellow in test tube 2 would
A.
still have changed to blue.
B.
have remained yellow.
C.
have changed to some other color.
D.
have become colorless.
The production of sugar in the guard cells during the day will
most likely result in
A.
20.
increased intake of water into the guard cells.
B.
loss of water from the guard cells.
C.
flaccidity of the guard cells.
D.
closure of the stomata.
Carbon dioxide and water
A.
have more potential energy than glucose.
B.
are produced from photosynthesis.
C.
are the reactants of cellular respiration.
D.
have less potential energy than glucose.
Questions 21-24 relate to the equation below.
from choices A, B, C, D and E.
C6H12°6+ 602 - -2ymeS
>
ATP Energy
A ‘ C6H12°6
B.
602
C.
6C0 2
D.
6H20
E.
ATP Energy
Select your answer
6C0 2 + 6H20 + ATP Energy
21.
Which substance would not be used in fermentation?
22.
Which molecule has the highest potential energy?
23.
Which substance is not produced in fermentation?
24.
Which reactant supplied the energy necessary for
of ATP?
25.
On a normal day guard cells
the formation
A.
become turgid and the stomata decrease in size.
B.
become flaccid and the stomata decrease in size.
C.
become turgid and the stomata increase in size.
D.
become flaccid and the stomata increase in size.
Questions 26-28 relate to the choices A, B, C and D below.
A.
A-BVP'vP
Enzyme— ^
A-PNP +^P
B.
A-P'n.P +1P
Enzyme— ^
A-PMHJ
C.
A-P'vP
Enzyme— ^
A _p +xp
D.
None of the above
26.
Which of the equations demonstrate the breaking of a bond that
releases the highest amount of energy?
27.
In which of the equations is a molecule of adenosine-tri-phosphate
used up and a molecule of adenosine-ai-phosphate and a low energy
phosphate group produced?
28.
In which of the equations is a molecule of adenosine-tri-phosphate
broken up and a molecule of adenosine-di-phosphate and a high
energy phosphate group produced?
29.
The primary source of energy for all life is
A.
B.
minerals.
carbohydrates, proteins and fats.
C.
ATP.
D.
sunlight.
30.
Which of the following would be the least precise way to express
the respiratory rates of a number of organisms?
A.
By using curves on a graph
B.
By using a table of numbers
C.
By showing drawings of the organisms
D.
By using bars on a graph
Questions 31-34.
The following paired statements refer to biological entities which
are to be compared in the quantitative sense. For each item blacken
A - if the entity described in column A is greater than that in
column B.
B - if the entity described in column B is greater than that in
column A.
C - if the entities described in both columns are essentially the
same.
Column A
Column B
31.
The potential energy of
an ATP molecule.
The potential energy of an
ADP molecule.
32.
The number of calories
conserved in one gram of
glucose as produced by
the process of
photosynthesis.
The number of calories
released from one gram of
glucose when oxidized in
cellular respiration.
33.
The kinetic energy of a
moving bus.
The kinetic energy of a
parked bus.
34.
The amount of lactic acid
produced during aerobic
muscle respiration.
The amount of lactic acid
produced during anaerobic
muscle respiration.
Question 35 relates to the experiment outlined below.
Five millilitres of 1% starch solution and an equal volume of amylase
solution were placed in each of two test tubes.
The contents of each
tube were well mixed. Test tube 1 was heated immediately for five minutes
on a boiling water bath while test tube 2 was kept on the-table*
in a test tube rack. After 45 minutes the contents of each tube were
tested for the presence of sugar.
35.
36.
This experiment was conducted to show
A.
the catalytic action of amylase.
B.
the presence of sugar in starch.
C.
the effect of time on enzyme activity.
D.
the effect of temperature on enzyme
activity.
Which of the following enzyme drawings can successfully split
this substrate?
Substrate
B
A
37.
The amount of energy liberated from sugar molecules during
respiration is greater when the end-product is
A.
alcohol.
B.
carbon dioxide.
C.
lactic acid
D.
pyruvic acid.
Question 38 relates to the experiment outlined below.
Five milliliters of 1% starch solution were placed in each of 2 test
tubes. Two drops of 0.5% amylase solution were added to test tube 1
and two drops of 2% amylase solution were added to test tube 2. The
contents of each tube were mixed and after 10 minutes a drop of mixture
from each tube was tested with iodine solution. A darker blue color
was seen in the drop from test tube 1 than in that from test tube 2.
38.
39.
40.
It may be concluded that in test tube 1 there was a
A.
higher concentration of enzyme solution and breakdown of a
smaller amount of starch than in test tube 2.
B.
higher concentration of enzyme solution and breakdown of
a greater amount of starch than in test tube 2.
C.
lower concentration of enzyme solution and breakdown of
a greater amount of starch than in test tube 2.
D.
lower concentration of enzyme solution and breakdown of a
smaller amount of starch.
More ATP is produced in aerobic respiration than in anaerobic
respiration because
A.
ATP is used up in the process.
B.
less carbon dioxide is produced.
C.
oxygen provides some energy.
D.
more bonds are broken.
If blue light is shone over a micro-lake
bubbles of gas would be produced than if
This is because green algae
A.
absorb light of green wavelengths.
B.
reflect blue light.
C.
absorb light of blue wavelengths.
D.
carry on respiration faster in green
containing algae more
the lightwere green.
light.
59
41.
42.
The bubbles of gas produced would most likely
A.
support combustion.
B.
put out a glowing candle.
C.
be inert.
D•
be C O ^ *
Plants exposed to red light would probably produce
A.
more starch than
plants exposed to green light.
B.
less starch than
plants exposed to green light.
C.
less starch than
plants exposed to white light.
D.
no starch.
Questions 43 and 44.
Use (A) for respiration
or (B) for photosynthesis to indicate
the word to be filled in above the arrows
numbered 43 and44.
The changes of potential energy are:
43
low potential energy (carbon dioxide and water) ------
>
44
high potential energy (glucose) ---------- $ low
potential energy (carbon dioxide and water).
Questions 45 - 48 relate to the diagram below.
letters to answer the questions.
D
C
B
A
+
+
E
Select the correct
C
60
45.
Which molecule has active sites?
46.
Which molecule has been produced from the reaction?
47.
If molecule C were not present the reaction
48.
A.
occur at the same rate.
B.
not occur at all.
C.
occur more rapidly.
D.
occur more slowly.
Water is given off because the reaction is
A.
B.
49.
50.
would
hydrolysis.
dehydration synthesis.
C.
anabolic.
D.
catabolic.
A hypothesis should be revised when
A.
some scientists speculate that an explanation is not likely.
B.
new inventions are made.
C.
alternative hypotheses can be found.
D.
experimental results show a previously accepted explanation
to be incorrect.
Which of the following approaches is best to follow in resolving
a controversial scientific issue?
A.
Accept the opinion of the best known scientist.
B.
Carry out further research into the matter in order to find
new information.
C.
Go along with what people believe .
D.
Controversial issues always have two sides and cannot be
resolved.
APPENDIX I
NAME
_____________________
Read the directions carefully,
completely.
DATE _________________
SCORE
Black out the appropriate letter
1.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
26.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
2.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
27.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
3.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
28.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
4.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
29.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
5.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
30.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
6.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
31.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
7. (A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
32.
CA)
CB)
cc)
CD)
CE)
8.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
33.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
9.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
34.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
10.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
35.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
11.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
36.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
12.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
37.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
13.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
CE)
38.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
14.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
39.
CA)
(B)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
15.
(A)
CB)
(C)
(D)
CE)
40.
(A)
CB)
(C)
CD)
CE)
16.
(A)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
41.
(A)
CB)
CC)
(D)
CE)
17.
(A)
CB)
CC)
(D)
(E)
42.
(A)
CB)
Cc)
(D)
CE)
18.
(A)
(B)
Cc)
(D)
CE)
43.
CA)
CB)
(C)
CD)
CE)
19.
(A)
CB)
(C)
(D)
CE)
44.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
20.
(A)
CB)
CC)
(D)
CE)
45.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
21.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
46.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
(E)
22.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
47.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
23.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
48.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
CE)
24.
(A)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
49.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
25.
CA)
CB)
CC)
CD)
CE)
50.
CA)
CB)
Cc)
CD)
(E)
VITA
Pauline Evadne Banton-Jolly was born in Spanish Town, Jamaica
on April 20, 1949.
She attended the Spanish Town Primary School and
St. Jago High School from which she graduated in June 1968, having
successfully completed the Cambridge General Certificate Ordinary and
Advanced Level Examinations.
She then pursued a Bachelor of Natural
Sciences at the University of the West Indies and graduated with
Honors in August 1971.
She taught Zoology, Biology and General Science
at Camperdown High School in Kingston, Jamaica from September 1971 to
September 1974.
In October 1974 she again registered at the University of the
West Indies to do the graduate Diploma in Education which she obtained
in August 1975.
She continued her education at Tuskegee Institute,
Alabama beginning in August 1975, completed the M.S. Degree in Biology
in July 1977, and entered Louisiana State University in January 1978
to read for the Ph.D. in Education.
She has taught Biology at Tuskegee
Institute and at Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
She is married to Curtis Majela Jolly and they have two sons,
Sentwali Akil and Andwele Majela.
62
EXAM INATIO N AND THESIS REPO RT
Candidate:
Pauline E. Jolly
Major Field:
Education
T itle of Thesis:
Student Achievement in Biology in
Styles of Students and Teachers
Terms of Cognitive
Approved:
Major Professor and Chairman
y>PL^>-v.
b.
-V
Dean of the Graduate School
EXAM INING COMMITTEE:
Date of Examination:
July 21, 1980