COGNITIVE STYLE AND STUDENTS' ABILITY TO PERFORM READING TASKS IN CONTENT AREAS

• Main Author: BIRMINGHAM, ANNE
• Format: Dissertation
• Language: English
• Published: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses 01-01-1982
• Subjects: Literacy
• ISBN: 9798204872400

This investigation revolved around four major variables: cognitive style (field-dependence, field-independence); reading tasks (main idea, major details, summarization, closure); content areas (social studies, science, literature); and sex. The general purposes of the study were: (1) to determine whether there were any significant differences between field-dependent students and field-independent students in the performance of four reading tasks in three content areas; and (2) to determine whether there were any significant differences between the male and female field-dependent students and the male and female field-independent students in the performance of four reading tasks in three content areas. Two hundred forty students were randomly selected from thirteen classes in four schools in a suburban, middle class, public school system in the greater New York area. All were administered the Group Embedded Figures Test as a means of identifying their cognitive style. Sixty students, thirty field-dependent (fifteen males, fifteen females) and thirty field-independent (fifteen males, fifteen females), were selected from the group. After reading levels were obtained, the four reading tasks in three content areas were administered. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to the six hypotheses generated for this study to determine if there were significant differences. Level of significance for these hypotheses were at the .05 level. The first hypothesis predicted differences between field-dependent and field-independent students across the aggregate of tasks and content areas while the second predicted differences across the aggregate of tasks in each content area. Both were rejected. The third hypothesis predicted differences between both groups in each task across the aggregate of content areas. This was rejected except for the closure task across the aggregate of content areas. The fourth predicted differences for each task in each content area. This hypothesis was rejected except for the closure task in both the social studies and science content areas. The fifth and sixth hypotheses predicted differences for cognitive style and sex differences in each task in each content area. Again only the closure tasks in social studies and science showed differences. The hypotheses were rejected.