Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles

Abstract

He has published widely in the field of learning styles and individual differences in relation to computer-based learning environments. He was co-director of the British Library research project "Information Skills for Studentcentred Learning", and is currently researching individual differences in relation to Internet use. Email: N.Ford@sheffield.ac.uk; tel: +44 114 222 2637; fax: +44 114 278 0300. Sherry Y. Chen is a PhD student at Sheffield University's Department of Information Studies. Her current research focuses on the role of individual differences and levels of learner control in hypermedia learning environments, particularly related to learning styles. She has worked as a system analyst in the parliamentary library of Taiwanese government, and as a part-time lecturer in Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan. Email: LIP96YC@sheffield.ac.uk; tel: +44 114 222 2665; fax: +44 114 278 0300. AbstractThis paper presents results of a research project that explored the relationship between matching and mismatching instructional presentation style (breadthfirst and depth-first) with students' cognitive style (field-dependence/-independence) in a computer-based learning environment. 73 postgraduate students were asked to create Web pages using HTML, using instructional materials that were either matched or mismatched with their cognitive styles. Significant differences in performance on a multiple choice test of conceptual knowledge were found for students learning in matched and mismatched conditions. Performance in matched conditions was significantly superior to that in mismatched conditions. However, significant effects were found for gender, matching mainly affecting male students. Performance on a practical test of Web page creation was not linked to matching or mismatching, but was linked to an interaction between gender and instructional presentation style. The findings provide support for the notion that matching and mismatching can have significant effects on learning outcomes. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research. IntroductionFor long educational practitioners and researchers have sought to provide instruction optimally matched to each learner's individual needs. Whilst we are still far from such an ideal, a number of models of individual differences have been developed over the years and we are arguably better placed than ever before to study, refine and implement

The relationship between web enjoyment and student perceptions and learning using a web‐based tutorial

“…The findings also echo the views of Fullerton (2000) and Ford and Chen (2001), which showed that users performed better with a system design matching their preferences, whilst their performance was reduced when the design did not match their preferences.…”

A Match or Mismatch Between Learning Styles of the Learners and Teaching Styles of the Teachers

“…The area of matching of student and teacher styles has been considered by [43]. They argue that more information is needed on the learning styles of large numbers of students, complemented by research geared to generating new insights into the complex interactions between learners and educators.…”

“…Many learning style experts [43], [19], and [38] showed the theory that students will learn more and will enjoy the class experience and environment when they can use their preferred learning styles. In some cases, students are blamed when the classroom activity is not compatible with their way of learning.…”

A flexible interface design for Web directories to accommodate different cognitive styles

“…Field Independent individuals consulted the user guide for a longer period than FD individuals in the linear version, while FD individuals consulted it for longer in the nonlinear version. In addition, Ford and Chen (2001) conducted an empirical study, in which they developed two Web sites with two different navigation paths: one used a depth-first path and the other one used a breadth-first path. In the depth-first path case, each topic is presented in detail before the next topic, while the breadth-first path gives an overview of all material prior to introducing detail.…”

“…The GEFT derives scores for Field Independence by requiring subjects to locate simple shapes embedded in more complex geometrical patterns. However, a criticism of this approach is that levels of Field Dependence are inferred from poor Field Independence performance (Ford & Chen, 2001). The CSA differs from the GEFT in that it includes two subtests.…”