Field-dependent and field-independent pupils differed significantly in numeracy performance, with cognitive style accounting for 12% of variation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 After controlling for pre-test scores, field-dependent and field-independent pupils differed significantly in numeracy performance, with cognitive style accounting for 12% of performance variation (partial eta square = 0.12). → Gbenga-Akanmu & Jegede 2019

Evidence¶

Gbenga-Akanmu & Jegede 2019¶

Gbenga-Akanmu, T. O., & Jegede, P. O. (2019). Influence of Meta-cognitive Training and Cognitive Styles on Numeracy Achievement of Nigerian Pupils’ in Computer-mediated Classrooms. World Journal of Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v9n1p221

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

ANCOVA of the quasi-experiment (Table 1) reports the field-dependent/independent effect as significant (F = 11.16; p = 0.0114). The printed effect size is partial eta square = 0.12; the article states cognitive style "accoun ted for 12% of the variation in the pupils’ performance". The text and abstract also present F = 11.16 as the effect of meta-cognitive training, although the table prints it on the cognitive-style row (the Group row is F = 13.15, p = 0.0023). Cognitive style was measured, not assigned, so this is a difference between groups of learners, not a shown cause.

"Furthermore, the partial eta square for the group embedded figure test is 0.12. This showed that (CGEFT) (f ield-dependent and independent) accoun ted for 12% of the variation in the pupils’ performance."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Number Sense — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Before intervention, mathematics performance differed by cognitive style, with field independent students scoring highest and field dependent students lowest — related
• Cooperative learning benefited all three cognitive style groups equally in mathematics, with no interaction between methodology and cognitive style — reports the opposite
• The intervention group was reported to explain 15% of the variation in pupils' numeracy performance, but the table prints that effect size on the cognitive-style row — related
• Meta-cognitive training has a significant effect on primary school pupils' performance of learned numeracy concepts in computer-mediated classrooms — related