Comparison of Students' Covariational Reasoning Based on Differences in Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Style

Ulumul Umah
{"title":"Comparison of Students' Covariational Reasoning Based on Differences in Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Style","authors":"Ulumul Umah","doi":"10.25217/numerical.v4i1.638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students’ difficulty in calculus can be related to their ability in covariational reasoning in school or college. Reasoning process involves high-level cognition. Nevertheless, the relationship between cognitive style and covariational reasoning has not been investigated more specifically. Cognitive style in this study was characterized by field-dependent and field-independent category. This paper describes the covariational reasoning process of field-dependent and field-independent students while constructing the graph of dynamic events. Students’ cognitive style data obtained through the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), while the covariational reasoning data obtained through the covariational problem test and verified by several interviews. The results showed that there was no significant consistent difference between field-dependent and field-independent students in their covariational reasoning level, but there were differences in students’ way of reacting to the context of the problems. Field-dependent subjects exhibited their mental action inconsistently when they faced a new problem that more complex than before. This finding indicated that we need to set the problem to make it an effective stimulus in developing student’s covariational reasoning ability.","PeriodicalId":31996,"journal":{"name":"Numerical Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Numerical Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25217/numerical.v4i1.638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Students’ difficulty in calculus can be related to their ability in covariational reasoning in school or college. Reasoning process involves high-level cognition. Nevertheless, the relationship between cognitive style and covariational reasoning has not been investigated more specifically. Cognitive style in this study was characterized by field-dependent and field-independent category. This paper describes the covariational reasoning process of field-dependent and field-independent students while constructing the graph of dynamic events. Students’ cognitive style data obtained through the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), while the covariational reasoning data obtained through the covariational problem test and verified by several interviews. The results showed that there was no significant consistent difference between field-dependent and field-independent students in their covariational reasoning level, but there were differences in students’ way of reacting to the context of the problems. Field-dependent subjects exhibited their mental action inconsistently when they faced a new problem that more complex than before. This finding indicated that we need to set the problem to make it an effective stimulus in developing student’s covariational reasoning ability.
基于场依赖型和场独立型认知风格差异的学生协变推理比较
学生在微积分方面的困难可能与他们在学校或大学中的协变推理能力有关。推理过程涉及高级认知。然而,认知风格和协变推理之间的关系还没有得到更具体的研究。本研究的认知风格具有场依赖和场独立两个范畴。本文描述了场相关和场无关学生在构建动态事件图时的协变推理过程。学生的认知风格数据通过组嵌入图测试(GEFT)获得,而协变量推理数据通过协变量问题测试获得,并通过多次访谈进行验证。结果表明,场依赖型和场独立型学生的协变量推理水平没有显著的一致性差异,但学生对问题情境的反应方式存在差异。领域依赖型受试者在面对比以前更复杂的新问题时,表现出不一致的心理行为。这一发现表明,我们需要设置问题,使其成为培养学生协变推理能力的有效刺激因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信