Abstract
The goal of this study was to investigate cognitive style (the visualizer–verbalizer dimension) and cognitive ability (spatial and verbal abilities) in terms of corresponding resource use behavior. The study further examined the potential link between cognitive style and cognitive ability based on observable behavior. A total of 67 university students participated in the study by completing an online survey containing a series of questionnaires, tests, and tasks, which assessed their cognitive style, cognitive ability, and resource use behavior. Multinomial logistic regression analyses revealed that cognitive style in general predicts resource use behavior. The findings also showed that spatial ability, particularly lower spatial ability, predicts resource use behavior. This study thus contributes to the literature with theory-based, empirical evidence that cognitive ability is reflected in cognitive style. This study further provides information needed to better understand the interplay between individuals’ cognitive style and cognitive ability and how these may be addressed in the design and implementation of learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 26, 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766370.
Ayers, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1.
Blazhenkova, O., Becker, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2011). Object–spatial imagery and verbal cognitive styles in children and adolescents: Developmental trajectories in relation to ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.012.
Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 638–663. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1473.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, S., & Long, J. S. (2007). Testing for IIA in the multinomial logit model. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124106292361.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076.
Cole, J. S., & Gonyea, R. M. (2010). Accuracy of self-reported SAT and ACT test scores: Implications for research. Research in Higher Education, 51(4), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9160-9.
Deary, I. J. (2001). Human intelligence differences: A recent history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01621.
Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793.
DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Manual_for_Kit_of_Factor-Referenced_Cognitive_Tests.pdf.
Evans, C., Cools, E., & Charlesworth, Z. M. (2010). Learning in higher education—How cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.493353.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Figl, K., & Recker, J. (2016). Exploring cognitive style and task-specific preferences for process representations. Requirements Engineering, 21(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-014-0210-2.
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Manual for kit of reference tests for cognitive factors (revised edition). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Garson, G. D. (2014). Logistic regression: Binary and multinomial. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.3.525.
Green, K. E., & Schroeder, D. H. (1990). Psychometric quality of the Verbalizer-Visualizer Questionnaire as a measure of cognitive style. Psychological Reports, 66, 939–945. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.939.
Hausman, J., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrics, 52, 1219–1240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684.
Hilbert, S., Bühner, M., Sarubin, N., Koschutnig, K., Weiss, E., Papousek, I., et al. (2015a). The influence of cognitive styles and strategies in the digit span backwards task: Effects on performance and neuronal activity. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 242–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.012.
Hilbert, S., Nakagawa, T. T., Puci, P., Zech, A., & Bühner, M. (2015b). The digital span backwards task: Verbal and visual cognitive strategies in working memory assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000223.
Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations—A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7.
Höffler, T. N., Koć-Januchta, M., & Leutner, D. (2017). More evidence for three types of cognitive style: Validating object-spatial imagery and verbal questionnaire using eye tracking when learning with text and pictures. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3300/full.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2011). The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations: Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042.
Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of computer assisted learning, 22, 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00180.x.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review, 7, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.12.002.
King, K., Huff, K., Ewing, M., & Andrews, M. (2005). Assessing the reliability of skills measured by the SAT (Report No. 24). New York, NY: College Board.
Kirby, J. R., Moore, P. J., & Schofield, N. J. (1988). Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361476X(88)90017-3.
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational psychologist, 48, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395.
Klein, P. D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternatives to ‘learning styles’ and ‘multiple intelligences’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 45–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270210141891.
Koć-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G.-B., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures—An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028.
Kollöffel, B. (2012). Exploring the relation between visualizer-verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Computers & Education, 58, 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.016.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition, 33, 710–726. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195337.
Leutner, D., & Plass, J. L. (1998). Measuring learning styles with questionnaires versus direct observation of preferential choice behavior in authentic learning situations: The visualizer/verbalizer behavior observation scale (VV-BOS). Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00023-5.
Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.833.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02.
Moskvina, V., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2011). Determining cognitive styles: Historical perspectives and directions for further research. In S. Rayner & E. Cools (Eds.), Style differences in cognition, learning, and management: Theory, research and practice (pp. 19–31). New York: Routledge.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x.
Riding, R. (2001). The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Roach, V. A., Fraser, G. M., Kryklywy, J. H., Mitchell, D. G., & Wilson, T. D. (2017). Different perspectives: Spatial ability influences where individuals look on a timed spatial test. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1654.
Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.
Velez, M. C., Silver, D., & Tremaine, M. (2005). Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. In Visualization, 2005. VIS 05. IEEE (pp. 511–518). https://doi.org/10.1109/visual.2005.1532836
Wang, L., & Carr, M. (2014). Working memory and strategy use contribute to gender differences in spatial ability. Educational Psychologist, 49, 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.960568.
Zhou, M. (2014). Gender difference in web search perceptions and behavior: Does it vary by task performance? Computers & Education, 78, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Toomey, N., Heo, M. Cognitive ability and cognitive style: finding a connection through resource use behavior. Instr Sci 47, 481–498 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09491-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09491-4