本研究旨在分析不同年級、作答型態之小學生在認知型態量表藏圖測驗之差異，並進一步探討認知型態對小學生在資訊擷取能力、空間能力之影響及其相關性。
為達上述目的，研究者以1999少年發明教室3-6年級國小學生（N=59）為研究對象，在實施「團體藏圖測驗」後，分為場地獨立（N=18）與場地依賴（N=17）兩組；以國科會研究成果「安可的假期」錄影帶及研究者設計之「資訊擷取能力測驗」、「空間能力測驗」為主要研究工具，所得資料以獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析、事後比較分析及pearson積差相關等統計方法進行資料分析處理。茲就本研究的主要結果說明如下：
一、 不同年級之國小學生在認知型態量表測驗，差異如下：
1-1、 國小三年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
存在。
1-2、 國小四年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
存在。
1-3、 國小五年級學生與六年級學生在認知型態量表測驗無明顯差異
存在。
1-4、 國小三年級學生與五年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
存在。
1-5、 國小四年級學生與五年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異
存在。
1-6、 國小三年級學生與四年級學生在認知型態量表測驗無明顯差異
存在。
1-7、 中年級學生與高年級學生在認知型態量表測驗有顯著差異存
在。
二、 不同作答型態之國小學生在認知型態量表-藏圖測驗上、無顯著差
異。
三、 場地獨立組學生在資訊擷取能力明顯優於場地依賴組。
四、 認知型態對國小學生在空間能力差異如下：
4-1、場地獨立組學生對空間能力-圖形製作（一）明顯優於場地依賴
組。
4-2、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作（二）明顯優於場地
依賴組。
4-3、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作（三）明顯優於場地
依賴組。
4-4、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-圖形製作（綜合）明顯優於場
地依賴組。
4-5、場地獨立組國小學生對空間能力-物件拆解、組合能力明顯優於
場地依賴組。
五、 不同認知型態之國小學生在資訊擷取能力與空間能力有顯著相關。
最後，本研究對上述研究結果加以討論之外，並綜合研究結論，提出未來研究上的建議，以作為後續研究之參考。
關鍵詞：國小學生、認知型態、空間能力、場地獨立、場地依賴

A Study on the Influences of Cognitive Style to Elementary School Students in Information Searching and Spatial Abilities
Ming–Cheng Lin
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to analyze the differences in cognitive style hidden figures test of elementary school students in different grades and answer mode. It also explores the influences and relationships of cognitive style of elementary schoolers in information searching and spatial abilities.
In order to achieve the goal, researcher chose third to six graders (N=59) in 1999 Youth Creativity Classroom as the study target, and divided them into groups of field independent(N=18) and field dependent(N=17) after giving them “hidden figure test”.
The research tools were the video tape entitled “Ann’s Vacation” from the research product of Country Science Council, “information searching test” and “spatial ability” designed by researcher. All collected data were analyzed by statistic methods such as independent sample t test, one-way ANOVA, a posterior comparison, and Pearson product-moment correlation. The main outcomes of this study were described as following:
A. The differences in cognitive style test among different graders were described as below:
A-1. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and six graders.
A-2. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between forth and six graders.
A-3. There is no distinct difference in cognitive style test between fifth and six graders.
A-4. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and fifth graders.
A-5. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between forth and fifth graders.
A-6. There is no distinct difference in cognitive style test between third and forth graders.
A-7. There is a distinct difference in cognitive style test between Middle and higher graders.
B. No distinct differences on the different answer mode to cognitive style-hidden figure test in elementary school students.
C. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in the ability of information searching.
D. The differences in cognitive style of elementary school students in spatial ability described as below:
D-1. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (I).
D-2. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (II).
D-3. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (III).
D-4. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-figure production (multiple).
D-5. The students in field independent group were superior to those who were in field dependent group in spatial ability-disassembled and combination abilities.
E. The elementary schoolers who have different cognitive styles have distinct relationship in information searching and spatial abilities.
This research did not only discuss the above research outcomes, but also synthesized these outcomes and provided suggestions as a reference for the further study.
Keywords: cognitive style, spatial ability, field independent, field dependent

一、 中文部份
丁振豐（民75）：學生場地獨立性與教師教學方法的交互作用對認知及情
意學習效果之影響。國立臺灣師範大學心輔研究所碩士論文（未出
版）。
丁振豐（民78）：場地獨立性認知型式個別差異現象及其對教學歷程的影
響之探討。台南師範學院學報，第22期，頁135-150。
丁振豐（民83）：三個心理學派典型對空間能力研究的比較。國立台南師
範學院初等教育學報，第7期，頁213-249。
丁興祥（民66）：認知形式與圖片不一致性對有易學習與偶發學習的影
響 。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
王三幸（民81）：影響國小高年級學生數學學業成就的相關因素研究。國
立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
王文科（民82）：教育研究法。台北：五南。
王玉蘭（民81）：對4歲與6歲幼童認知的調查研究。教育理論與實踐，
3期，頁52~54。
王春龍（民87）：認知型態與多媒體電腦輔助教學策略對電機控制學習成
效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
朱則剛（民82）：教學設計核心理念-學習理論與教學理論知識基礎的研
究。視聽教育雙月刊，35（2），頁1-23。
朱敬先（民77）：教育心理學。台北：五南。
吳天方（民70）：我國師範大學工業教育學生學習風格之相關研究。教育
研究資訊,5期,頁114-132。
吳百薰（民87）：國小學生學習風格相關因素之研究。國立台中師範學院
國民教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
吳武典（民75）：國中資優學生的認知方式與學習方式之探討。特殊教育
研究學刊，第2期，頁219-230。
吳武典（民82）：輔導原理。台北：心理出版社。
吳知賢（民78）：國小高年級兒童之人格特質、媒體偏好、科目興趣與其
認知型態的關係。國立台南師範學院學報，第22期，頁29-54。
吳新華（民83）：國小學童班級適應、學習方法之效率與學業成就之關
係。台南師範學報,27期,頁31-73。
吳裕益（民78）：認知能力與認知型態個別差異現象之探討。高雄師範學
院，教育學刊，第7期，頁143-173。
吳靜吉（民68）：藏圖測驗。台北：遠流。
李永吟（民78）：教學原理。台北：遠流。
李金泉（民86）：如何精通 SPSS for Windows 統計分析。台北：松崗。
林 華（民85）：認知型態與遊歷輔助工具種類對超媒體學習系統中使用
者表現與態度之影響。國立交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文。（未出
版）
林生傳（民74）：國中學生學習式態之相關因素及其與學校教育態度、學
業成就關係。教育學刊,6期,頁41-94。
林邦傑（民71）：國中及高中學生具體運思，形式運思與學業成就之關
係。測驗年刊，28期，頁23-32。
林美和（民76）：數學障礙兒童學習問題之研究。國立臺灣師範大學社會
教育學刊，16期，頁43-76。
林美和（民81）：學習型態的剖析及其在成人教育上之研究。婦女教
育， 頁179-196。台北：師大書苑。
林偉人（民84）：國小學生場地獨立性及握信念對數學科電腦輔助教學學
習成效之研究。國民教育研究集刊，第1期，頁267-295。
林清山 譯（民85）：教育心理學-認知取向。台北：遠流。
林清山（民 64）：多變項分析統計法。台北：東華。
林清山（民74）：魏肯氏心裡分化理論相關問題之實證性研究。師大教育
心理學報，第18期，頁39-54。
林清山(民81):心理與教育學。台北:東華。
林義男（民79）：大學生的學習參與、學習型態與學習成果的關係。輔導
學報,13期,頁79-128。
林錦雪（民84）：CAI與傳統教學對不同學習風格之國小學生學習自然科
學成就和態度之影響。台南師範初等教育研究所碩士論文（未出
版）。
林麗娟（民83）：互動式教育環境與科學性知識的學習。教學科技與媒
體，16期，頁3-13。
林麗琳（民84）：國小資優班與普通班學生學習風格、學習適應與學業成
就關係之研究。國立台南師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文（未出
版）。
洪榮昭（民79）：學習型態分組在CAI學習成效之研究。國科會計劃：
NSC79-0111-S-003-007。頁9-15。
洪榮昭（民84）：不同學習型態在問題解決思維發展之研究。國科會計
劃：NSC84-2511-S-003-081-CL。頁22-38。
洪榮昭、 劉明洲（民86）：電腦輔助教學之設計原理與應用。台北：師
大書苑。
候雅齡（民83）：促進教學成效的新教學策略--了解學生的學習式態並予
以設計相合的教學活動。國教天地,103期,頁69-75。
袁之琦、游恒山（民77）：心理學名詞辭典。台北：五南。
馬德強（民85）：場地獨立性對全球資訊網資料搜尋成效之研究。國立高
雄師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文（未出版）。
高德鳳等（民64）：國中學生場地獨立性與智力、性別、自我接受度三者
關係。中國心理學刊，17期，頁105-108。
張玉燕（民74）：學習型態分析。中等教育,1期,頁32-38。
張芝萱（民84）：國民小學資優生學習動機、學習認知、學習方式偏好與
學校生活素質感之相關研究。國立新竹師範學院初等教育研究所碩士
論文（未出版）。
張春興（民77）：知之歷程與教之歷程：認知心理學的發展及其教育上的
應用。師大教育心理學報，21期，頁17-28。
張春興（民78）:張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華書局。
張春興（民83）：現代心理學。台北：東華，頁258-278。
張春興（民85）：教育心理學-三化取向的理論與實踐。台北：東華，頁
211-250。
張景媛（民77）：教學類型與學習類型適配性研究暨學生學習適應理論模
式的驗證。國立臺灣師範大學心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出
版）。
張麗芬（民78）兒童空間認知能力發展之研究。教育與心理研究，12期，
頁249-281。
郭生玉（民73）：心理與教育研究法。台北：精華。
郭生玉（民82）：心理與教育測驗。台北：精華。
郭重吉（民76）：英美等國晚近對學生學習風格之研究。資優教育季刊，
第22期，頁2-8。
郭重吉（民76）：評介學習風格之有關研究。資優教育季刊，第23期，頁
7-16。
郭重吉（民77）：從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。國立臺灣教育學院
學報，13期，頁352-378。
陳如山（民82）：成人學習型態及其相關因素之研究。空大社會科學學
報,1期,頁59-105。
陳婉如（民87）：認知型態與空間能力對程式設計學習成效之研究。國立
彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳清泉（民79）：大學生生活壓力、認知型態與憂鬱傾向相關之研究。國
立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
陳惠貞（民84）：電腦輔助音樂教學與傳統教學對不同學習式態的國小學
生音樂學習之成效之探討。台南師範初等教育研究所碩士論文（未出
版）。
陳景堂（民87）：統計分析 SPSS for Windows 入門與應用。台北儒林。
曾淑容（民68）：我國高中學生性別、智力、創造力三者與場地獨立關係
之研究。教育學院學報，第4期，頁251-280。
曾盛琳（民79）：創造思考、認知型態與產品設計能力的關係。國立成功
大學工業管理研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
游朝煌（民84）：大學學生空間能力、邏輯思考能力、不同補充教學策略
及相關因素對程式設計學習成效之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育
研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
鈕文英（民83）：學習障礙學生的學習風格與教學。教育研究雙月刊,37
期,頁67-74。
黃玉枝（民74）：國中資優學生與普通學生學習風格及學校適應比較研
究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
黃瑞琴（民83）：質的教育研究方法。台北：心理。
楊坤原（民85）：認知風格與科學學習成就的關係。科學教育月刊，194
期，頁2-12。
楊家興（民75）：個別化教學，智慧型電腦輔助教學的展望。科學教育，
94期，頁14-23。
路約君等（民78）：修訂區分性向測驗。台北：中國行為科學社。
劉信雄（民81）：國小學生認知風格、學習策略、自我效能與學業成就關
係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
歐陽鍾玲(民71)：學童空間概念的發展。臺灣師範大學地理研究所碩士論
文（未出版）。
蔡翠華（民85）：國小數學學習障礙學生學習型態與學習策略之相關研
究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
鄭昭明（民76）：認知心理學與教學研究：一般介紹。現代教育，2期，
頁86-114。
鄭昭明(民82):認知心理學。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
鄭晉昌(民82)：自情境學習的認知觀點探討電腦輔助教學中教材內容的設
計一從幾個學科教學系統談起。教學科技與媒體,12期,頁3-14。
戴久永（民80）：統計概念與方法。台北：三民。
戴文雄(民81）：高工學生認知型態與空間觀念對機械製圖學習成效與態
度之研究。高雄：復文。
戴文雄(民83)：學習型態與電腦輔助學習對機械製圖學習成效之研究。臺
北:第九屆全國技術及職業教育研討會論文集一般技職及人文教育類,
頁231-240。
戴文雄(民87)：不同正增強回饋型式電腦輔助學習系統對不同認知型態與
空間能力高工學生機械製圖學習成效之研究。行政國科會計劃：NSC
86-2516-S-018-010-TG,頁25-48。
戴文雄、陳華昌、游朝煌、陳培文(民83)：高工學生空間觀念對機械製圖
學習成效與態度之研究。行政國科會委託專案研究報告。
簡紅珠（民81）：學習型態與教學型態--研究發現與應用。國教世紀,4
期,頁28-32。
簡茂發、蘇建文、陳淑美（民75）：國小系列學業性向測驗指導手冊。台
北：中國行為科學社。
豐佳燕(民88):特教師資班學員認知型態對使用網路互動式遠距學習系統
之影響。師大特殊教育碩士論文，頁38-64（未出版）。
魏丕信（民84）：不同介面表現形式及個人認知型態差異對使用超媒體資
訊系統搜尋效果的影響。第四屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文集。頁
21-38。新竹：交通大學。
羅德望 譯（民76）：視覺心理學。台北：五洲出版社。
蘇育任（民84）：國小教師教學模式與學生認知型態對自然科學習成效成
績之影響。初等教育研究集刊。
鐘 菁（民83）：學生學習型態與學業成績關係之研究。國立台北商專學
報,43期,頁209-243。

二、 西文部份
Abouserie, R. & Moss, D. (1992) Cognitive style, gender
attitude toward computer-assisted learning and academic
achievement. Educational Studies, 18(2), 151-160.
Akin, A. (1992) An analysis of the effect of matching student
learning style to method of instruction. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53, 1331A. (University Microfilms
NO. 931-446).
Anamuah-Mensay, J. (1986). Cognitive strategies used by
chemistry students solve volumetric analysis problems.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(9), 759-762.
Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing. New York: Mac
Millan.
Ausubel. David. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view. New York: Holt, Rinehart. & Winston, Inc.
Baker, P. & King, T. (1993). Evaluating interactive multimedia
courseware methodology. Computer Educating. 21(4) 307-319.
Baker, P. R. & Belland, J. C. (1986). Developing spatial skills
with experLOGO on the Macintosh.ERIC ED 281 490.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barry, M. H. (1986). The effect of field-dependence-
independence match and mismatch of student and teacher on
science achievement. ED 293898.
Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender
difference in high school geometry. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 21(1), 41-60.
Bell-Gredler, Me. (1986). Learning and instruction: Theory into
practice. NY: Macmillan.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group difference in study
processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 48,
266-279.
Bisop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathematics
education: A review. Educational Studies in Mathematics 11,
257-269.
Block, J. H., & Anderson, L. W. (1975). Mastery learning in
classroom instruction. New York: Macmillan.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human Characteristics and school learning.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhard, M., Hill, W., Furst, E., & Krathwohl,
D. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. J., & Hastings, J. T. (1981).
Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGrew-Hill.
Boehm, B. (1988). A spiral model of software development and
enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21(5), 67-72.
Bonham, L. A. (1988). Learning style use: In need of
perspective. Lifelong Learning. 11(5), 14-17.
Borich, G. D. (1992). Effective teaching methods (2nd Ed.) New
York: Maxwell Macmillan International.
Boutwell, R. C., & Barton, G. E. (1974). Toward an adaptive
learner-control led model of instruction: A place for the
new cognitive aptitudes. Educational Technology, 14(5),
13-18.
Bove, T. & Rhodes, C. (1990). Que's Macintosh multimedia
handbook. Indianapolis, IN: QUE.
Boysen, V. A. (1980). Interaction of field dependence-
independence with type of feedback used in computer-assised
equation solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa
State University.
Broverman, D. M. (1960). Cognitive styles and intraindivisual
variation in abilities. Journal of Personality, 28, 240-
256.
Burkhalter, B. B., & Schaer, B. B. (1985). The effect f
cognitive style and cognitive learning in a nontraditional
educational setting, Educational Research Quarerely, 9(4),
12-18.
Canfield, A. A. (1988). Canfield learning styles inventory
manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Carter, C. S., Larussa, M. A., Bodner G. M. (1985). Spatial
ability in general chemistry. NARST,French Lick.
Chase, W. G. & Chi M. T. H. (1981). Cognitive skill :
Implications in Largi-Scale Environments. In Harvey, J. H.
(ed). Cognition, social behavior, and the environment
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum Assoc, 111-136.
Claxton, C. S. & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning Styles:
Implications for improving educational practices.
Washington D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Claxton, S. and Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning Styles: Their
impact on teaching and administration. AAHE-ERIC Higher
Education Research Report, No.lO. Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Higher Education. (Eric Document
Reproduction Service. No. ED. 167 065).
Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-
based instructional design. Educational Technology. 25(1),
33-37.
Connor, J. M. & Serbin, L. A., & Schackamn, M. (1977). Sex
difference in children's response to train on a Visual-
Spatial Test. Developmental psychology, 13(3), 293-294.
Cornett, C .E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and
learning styles. (Eric Document Reproduction Service.No.ED
228 235).
Cosky M .J. (1980). Computer-based instruction and cognitive
styles: Do they make a difference? National Conference on
Computer-Based Education, Bloomington, MN. (ERIC Document
Reproduction service No, ED 201299）
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and
instructional methods: A handbook for research on
interactions. New York: Irvington.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles,theory and
constructs. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. Ed 235
185).
Curry, L. (1990a). Learning styles in secondary schools: A
review of instruments and implications for their use. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 317 283).
Curry, L. (1990b). A critique of the research on learning
styles. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 50-56.
Daniel, A. et al. (1986). Cognitive style as a predicter of
Achievement: A Multivariate Analysis.ERIC ED 248217.
De Soto, D. B. et al. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial
paralogic. J. Of personality and social psychology. V2 (4),
513-521.
Dembo, M. H. (1988). Applying educational psychology in the
classroom (3rd Ed). NY:Longman.
Donelson, F. L. (1990) The development, testing, and used of a
computer interface to evaluate an information processing
model describing the rate of encoding and mental rotation
in high students of high and low spatial ability. (ED 326
396).
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their
individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston,
Va.: Reston publishing Company.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1994). Teaching young childrn through
their individual learning styles: practical approaches for
grades K-2. Massachusetts : Simon & Schuster.
Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of Learning and Teaching.
Chihester: Johnson Wiley and Sons.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Cognitive style and learning. In K.
Mar joribanks (Ed.), The foundations of students' learning.
(p.139-145). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Federico, P. N., & Landis. D. B. (1984). Cognitive styles,
abilities, and appititudes: Are They Dependent or
Independent. Contemporary Educational Psychology 9,146-161.
Francis, M. D. & David, M. M. (1995). Effect of color coding
and test type (visual/verbal) on student identified as
possessing defferent field dependence levels. Selected
Readings from the Annual Congruence of the International
Vesual Literacy Association.
Frey. D & Simonson, M.(1990). Cognitive style, perceptual
modes, anxiety, attitude, and achievement. (ED 323 929).
Gagne, R. & Briggs, L. (1992). Principles of instructional
design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Publisher.
Gagne, R. M. (1974). Essentials of learning for instruction.
Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of
instruction. NJ: CBS College Publishing.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligence. N. Y.: basic books, Inc.
Garrott, Carl L. (1986). Cognitive Style and Impressions of
Student Achievement in College French Class. ED 277 276.
Gearheart, B. R., & Gearheart, C. J. (1989). Learning
disabilities: Educational strategies. Columbus: Merrill
Publishing Company.
Glaser, R. (1972). Individuals and learning: The new aptitudes.
Educational Researcher, 1(6), 5-13.
Glaser, R., & Resnick, L. B. (1972). Instructional psychology.
In P. B. Muessen & M. R. Rosenweig (Eds.), Annual review of psychology. Pale Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Gregoric, AF (1979). Learning /Teaching Styles: Potent Forces
behind Them. Educational Leadership, 36(4), 234-236.
Guilfod, J.P. (1980). Cognitive styles: What are they?
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 40(3), 715-735.
Hill J. E. (1970). Cognitive style as an educational science.
Bloom field Hills, Michigan: Oakland Community College
Press.
Hill W. F. (1985). Learning A survey of psychological
interpretations. (4th Ed.) New York: Harper Row.
Hoffman, D. A. (1978). Field independence and intelligence:
Their relation to leadership and self-concept in six-grade
boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 827-832.
Holley, C. D., & Dnsereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning
Strategies. NY. : Academic press.
Hong, J. C. (1994). A study of discovery learning with
different learning style in a CAI environment. Proceeding
of National Science Council, Part D Math. SCI. Technical.
Educ., 4(2), 70-80.
Hooper, E. B. (1982). The effects of field dependence and
instructional sequence on student learning. In a computer-
based algebra lesson. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa
state University.
Hooper, K. (1990). HyperCard: A key to educational computing.
Learning with Interactive Multimedia development and Using
Multimedia Tool in Education, Apple computer Inc.
Hsu, T. E. (1994). Effects of learner cognitive style and
metacognitive tools information acquisition paths and
learning in hyperspace environment (pp.291-306). ERIC NO.ED
373721.
Hudson, T. (1992). Teaching with interactive multimedia. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western State
Communication Association (63rd, Boise, ID, Fe bursary 21-
25, 1992).
Hunt D. E. (1979). Learning Style and Student Needs: An
Introduction to Conceptual Level. In NASSP (ED). Student
learning style: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (27-
38). Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.
Hunt, E., & pellegrino, J. (1984). Using interactive computing
to expand intelligence testing: A critique and prospectus.
(ERIC ED 250 320).
Joan, P. G. (1985). An investigation of relationship between
field dependent-independent cognitive style, interpersonal]
orientation, and learning preference among head nurses and
a selected group of staff nurese. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Boston.
Johnson, S., Flinn, J. M., & Tyer, Z. E. (1979). Effect of
practice and training in spatial skill in Embedded Figures
score of males and females. Perceptual and motor skills,
48, 975-984.
Jonasen. D. H. & Grabowski, B, L. (1993). Handbook of
individual differences learning and instruction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erbium associates.
Jonassen, D. ed. (1988). Instructional designs for
microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jonassen, E. H. (1991). Learning VS. Information. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 3-5.
Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality
and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology. 71, 17-24.
Keefe, J, W. (1987). Learning style theory and practices.
Virginea: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Keefe, J, W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and the
instructional leadership series. ERIC Document NO: ED
355634.
Keefe, J, W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking
skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED355634).
Kemp, J. (1985). The instructional design process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston Publisher.
Kirby, J. R. (1984). Cognitive strategies and educational
performance. New York: Academic Press.
Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy and skill in reading. In
R.R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning style
(pp.229-274). New York: Plenum Press.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variations in childhood and
adolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitive style. In
J. H. Flavell, E, M. Markman, & P.H. Mussen (Eds.),
Handbook of Child psychology (vol. 3, Cognitive
development). New York: Wiley.
Kogan, Nathan. (1972). Educational implications of cognitive
styles. In Gerald Lesser (ED.), Psychology and educational
practice. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Froesman.
Kolb, D. D. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual.
Boston: McDer and Company.
Kornbluth, J. A. (1982). The effect of cognitive style and
study method on mathematical achievement of disadvantaged
Students. School Science and Mathematics, 2, 141-147.
Kosslyn et al. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial
representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical
and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 15, 723-735.
Kulik, J. A. & Banget, R. L. (1983). Effectiveness of
technology in precoll ege mathematics and science teaching.
Journal of Educational Technology System, 12(2), 137-158.
Liben, L. S. (1981). Spatial representation and behavior:
Multiple perspectives. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson & N.
Newcombe (Eds.). Spatial representation and behavior
across the life span: Theory and application. N. Y.:
Academic Press.
Lin, C. H. & Davidson, G. (1994). Effects of Linking structure
and cognitive style on students' performance and attitude
in computer-based hypertext environment.(ERIC NO.ED373734)
Little, T. (1991). Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of
the correlation literature. Stanford, C. A.: Stanford
university.
Liu, M. & Reed, W. (1994). The relationship between the
learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia
environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(4), 419-434.
Liu, M. & Reed, W. (1994). The relationship between the
learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia
environment. (Pp. 1-12). (ERIC NO.ED372727)
Load T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual- spatial aptitude of
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5),
395-405.
Load T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher. 52
(5), 32-34.
Loerke, A. M. (1993). Instructional preferences of students in
a collaborative nursing program. AAC MM88237.
Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial ability: Individual differences
in speed and level (Tech. Rep. No. 9). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, and School
Of Education. (NTIS No. AD-A075973)
Lohman, D. F., & Kyllonen, P. C. (1984). Individual
differences in solution strategy on spatial and change. In
S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of Science, 3, and 423-
475). New York: McCraw-Hill CO.
Lord, T. R. (1985). Enhancing the visual spatial aptitude of
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5),
395-405.
Lord, T. R. (1987). Spatial teaching. The Science Teacher, 52
(2), 32-34.
Lowery, B. R., & Knirk, F. G. (1982). Microcomputer video games
and spatial visualization acquisition. Journal of
Educational Technology System, 11(2), 155-156.
MacNal, W. et al. (1991). Cognitive style and analytic ability
and their relationship to competence in the biological
science. Journal of Biological education.
Marshall, J. C. (1987). Examination of a learning style
inventory. Research in Higher education, 206(4), 417-429.
McCormack, A. (1988). Visual/spatial thinking: An element of
elementary school science. Council for elementary science
international, San Diego State University.
Mckeachie, W.J. (1987). The new look in instructional
psychology: Teaching strategies for learning and thinking.
In E. D.Corte, H.L.Wijks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span, (Eds.),
Learning and Instruction (pp.443-456). Leuven University
Press and Pergam on Press.
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design.
Educational Technology, 31(5). 45-53.
Merrill, M. D., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second generation
instructional design (ID2). Educational Technology. 30(2),
7-14.
Messer, S. B. (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Messick, S. (1970). The criterion problem in the evaluation of
instruction: Assessing Possible, not just intended,
outcomes. In M. C. Wittrock & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The
evaluation of instruction: Issues and problems. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and
creativity. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in Learning
(pp. 4-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality.
American Psychologist. 24, 1012-1018.
More, A. J. (1993). Adapting teaching top the learning styles
of native Indian students. ERIC Document NO: ED 366493.
Mory, E. D. (1992). The use of information feedback in
instruction: Implications for future research. Educational
Technology research and Devek\lopment, 40(3), p5-22.
Mumaw, R. J. & Pellegrino, J. W. (1984). Individual differences
in complex spatial processing. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(5), 920-939.
Newcombe, N, & Bandura, M.M. (1983). Eect of age at puberty on
spatial ability in girls: A question of mechanism.
Developmental Psychology, 19, 215-224.
Nordstrom, B. H. (1989). Non-traditional students: Adults in
transition. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. ED
310686).
Paiget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child.
New York: Basic books.
Paiget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to
adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.
Pallrand, G., & Seeber, F. (1984). Spatial ability and
achievement in introductory physics. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 21(5), 507-516.
Pearson, J. L., & Ialongo, N. S. (1986). The relationship
between spatial ability and environment knowledge. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 6, 299-304.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets construction: A state-
of-the art assessment. NY: Educational Technology, 31(5).
18-23.
Post P. E. (1987). The effect of field independence/field
dependence on computer-assisted instruction achievement.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 25(1), 60-67.
Prey, D & Simonson, M. (1990). Cognitive style, perceptual
modes, anxiety, attitude, and achievement. (ED 323 929).
Pribly, J. R. & Bodner, C. M. (1985). The Role of spatial
ability and achievement in organic chemistry. (ERIC ED 255
393).
Roberge, Janes J. and others (1984), Cognitive style,
operatively and reading achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(1), 27-36.
Roberston, I. T. (1982). Individual differences in formation
processing strategy and style. Paper presented at the of
the international conference on Man/Machine Systems (pp. 85-
88), London.
Satterly, D, J, (1976). Cognitive styles, spatial
ability and school achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68(1), 36-42.
Satterly, D, J, (1985). Cognitive styles, spatial ability and
school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56
(1), 36-42.
Schimmel, B. J. (1986). Feedback use by Low-Ability students in
computer-based education. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47(11), 4068.
Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in
courseware. In D. H.Jonassen (ED), Instructional designs
for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale.NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Schmeck, R. R. (1982). Inventory of learning Process. In
Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior (p.73-80).
Reston, VA: NASSP. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No.
ED 227565)
Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Motor learning & performance from
principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Publications.
Semple, E. E. (1982). Learning style. A review of the
literature. (Eric Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 222
477)
Shymansky, J. & YORE, L. (1980). A study of teaching
strategies, student cognitive development, and cognitive
style as they relate to student achievement inscience. The
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17,369-382.
Skinner, B. F. (1983). Science and human behavior. Ontario,
Canada: Macmillan Co.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Educational Psychology.Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Smith, C. L. (1985). Relationship of microcomputer-based
instruction and learning style. Journal of Educational
Technology System. 13(4), 265-270.
Smith, E. S. (1993). Myers-Briggs type indictor and computer
liberty: A study of adult learners in a technological
business environment. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania
University.
Smith, I. M. (1985). Spatial ability: Its educational and
social significance. San Diego: Knapp. 40sp.
Smith, L., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984). Learning style prefernces:
A practical approach for classroom teachers. Therory into
practice, 23(1), 44-50.
Smith, R. M. (1952). Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for
Adult. Chicago: follett Publishing Company.
Stahlnecker, R.K. (1988). Relationships between learning style
preferences of selected elementary pupils and their
achievement in Math and Reading (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Loma Linda, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 50, 3471A.
Stanto, N, A., & Baber, C, (1992). An investigation of styles
and stregies in self-directed learning. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(4), 147-167.
Steussy, C. (1988). Path analysis: A model for the development
of scientific reasoning abilities in adolescents. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 41-53.
Strauss, E, & Kinsbourne, M. (1981). Does age at menarche act
the ultimate level of verbal and spatial skills? Cortex,
17, 323-325.
Strawitz, B, M. (1984a). Cognitive style and the acquisition,
transfer of the ability to control variable. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. 21,133-141.
Strawitz, B, M. (1984a). Cognitive style and the effect of two
instruction treatments on the acquisition and transfer of
their ability to control variable. A longitudinal syudy.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 21,833-841.
Tai, W. S. & Kang, F. M (1995). A Study on task analysis for
engineering drawing technicians. Fourth World Conference on
Engineering Education. Oct. 15-20, 1995, Saint Paul.
Tai, W. S. (1987). The study of interaction between student
characteristics and teaching methods on achievement of
selected drafting concepts. Unpublished doctorial
dissertation. Iowa State University.
Tai, W. S., Yue, C. H., Chen, H. C., & Chen, P. W. (1995). The
study of spatial ability and computer assisted learning on
achievements of engineering drawing. The International
Conference on Skill Formation Curriculum and Instruction,
ICsF-95, TAIPEI, 61-67.
Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London:
Routledge.
Thorndyke. P. W. (1981). Spatial cognition and reasoning. In
Harvey, J. H. (Ed). Cognition social behavior and the
environment. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum Assoc. 137-149.
Vernon, P, E. (1972), The distinctiveness of field dependence,
Journal of Personality, 40, 366-391.
Vigil. P. J. (1988). Oline retrieval: Analysis and strategy.
NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 242p.
Waber, D. P., Mann, M. B., Merola, J, & Moylan, P. M. (1985),
Physical maturation rate and cognitive performance in early
adolescence: A longitudinal examination, Developmental
Psychology, 21, 666-681.
Waldrop, P. B. (1984). Behavior reinforcement strategies for
computer assisted instruction: programming for success.
Educational Technology, 24(9), 38-41.
Wavering, M. J. (1986). Performance of students in grades six,
nine, twelve on five logical, spatial, and formal tasks.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(4), 321-329.
Wertheimer, M. (1979). A brief history of psychology. N. Y.:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wertheimer,M.(1979).A brief history of psychology. N.Y.Holt,
Rinehary and Winston.
West, C. E. (1984). Enhancing mathematics ability in sixth
grade females via computer based graphics and problem
solving. (Doctoral dissertation university of southern
California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45.1985.
Winn, W. (1988). Recall of the pattern, sequence, and name of
concepts presented in instructional diagrams. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 25, 315-386.
Within, H. A. et al. (1962). Psychological differentiation.
New York: Wiley.
Witkin, G., Mackle, D., & Cooper, 5. (1985). Gender and
Computer: Two surveys of compuer-related attitudes. Sex
Role, 13(3/4), 215-228.
Witkin, H. A. & Berry, J.W. (1975). Psychological
differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of
cross-cultural Psychology. 6(1). 4-87.
Witkin, H. A. (1976). Cognitive styles in learning and
teaching. In Messich et. al. (Ed.). Individuality in
learning. S. F. Ca: Jossey-bass Publishers.
Witkin, H. A. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-
independent cognitive styles in academic evolution: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69
(3), 197-211.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and
interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84,661-689.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style. New
York: International Universities Press, Inc.
Witkin, H. A., & Moore, C. A.(1974). Cognitive style and
teaching learning process. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No.ED097356)
Witkin, H. A., (1978). Cognitive style in personal and cultural
adaptation (vol. XI). 1977 Heinz Werner lecture series.
Worcester, MA: Clark University.
Witkin, H., 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), 1-64.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. & Kaerp, S.A.( 1971 ) .
A manual for the embedded finures tests.California:
Consulting psychologist Press Inc.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational psychology(5th ed). Bostom:
Allyn & Bacon,459-643.
Zavotka, S. (1985). The use of three-dimensional computer
graphics animation to teach spatial skills to home
economics college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, the Ohio states university.