Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction of different learning styles with different instructional presentations involving learner control while using an interactive videodisc system. Specifically, the issue was to determine if field-independent and field-dependent learners would perform differently from each other under different instructional treatments where the amount of learner control was varied through the environment of interactive videodisc learning.
Learning styles were measured by the Concealed Figures Test, which identified the learner as being either field dependent or field independent. The eighty-seven college students participating in the study were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups, Program Control, Student Control, or Experimental Control. The Program Control treatment provided the learner limited choices in the pace, path, and amount of instructional exposure. The Student Control treatment provided the learner maximum choices as to pace, path, and amount of instructional exposure. The Experimental Control treatment was a non- interactive videodisc program, consisting of a self-study guide.
Data from the pre-tests, post-tests, and recall tests were analyzed using descriptive methods for means and standard deviations and Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs) were used for measuring the main effects of the treatments and the interaction effects between learning styles and the treatments of learner control.
The results of the study indicated improvement in learning achievement when using the interactive videodisc tutorial as compared with learning from a printed text
containing similar subject content. There was no significant difference of post-test performance between those students assigned to the Student Control group and the Learner Control group, however, there was a significant difference between the two groups when compared with the Experimental Control group. There were differences of performance between the field dependents and field independents assigned to the three treatment groups.
However, the differences were not significant.
Finally, there was a significant interaction of learning
styles, with the treatment groups for learning control, indicating that for the field dependent student, the Student
Control method was the better, while for the field independent student, the Program Control method was the best. However, the interactions are the reverse of what was predicted for each learning style. A post-hoc analysis of time-on-task data is used to explain this situation.
