An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships Among Cognitive Abilities, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preferences in Students Enrolled in Specialized Degree Courses at a Canadian College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although specific cognitive abilities, cognitive style, and learning preferences are assumed to be inter-related, the empirical evidence supporting this assumption is mixed. Cognitive style refers to how individuals represent information, and learning preference refers to how individuals prefer the presentation of information (Mayer & Massa, 2003). Both cognitive style and learning preferences have been linked to specific cognitive abilities, such as verbal abilities, visual imagery and spatial abilities, though the nature of the inter-relationships remains tenuous in the literature. The present study addressed the roles of specific cognitive abilities in the relationship between learning preferences and the visualizer-verbalizer dimension of cognitive style, using a unique sample of students enrolled in specialized post-secondary programs. A battery of cognitive tests and questionnaires was administered. It was found that spatial abilities predicted visual cognitive style, which in turn, predicted visual learning preferences. Vocabulary knowledge predicted verbal cognitive style, but not verbal learning preferences. These results suggest that specific cognitive abilities predict visual-verbal cognitive styles, though the distinction between visual-verbal cognitive styles does not have clear associations with learning preferences. Bien que l’on suppose que les habiletés cognitives, le style cognitif et les préférences en matière d’apprentissage soient interreliés, les preuves empiriques étayant cette supposition sont partagées. Le style cognitif renvoie à la façon dont les individus perçoivent l’information et les préférences en matière d’apprentissage concernent la présentation de l’information (Mayer & Massa, 2003). Les chercheurs ont établi un lien entre, d’une part, le style cognitif et les préférences d’apprentissage et, d’autre part, des capacités cognitives spécifiques comme les habiletés verbales, l’imagination visuelle et les capacités spatiales; quoique la nature des interrelations reste fragile dans les écrits. La présente étude a considéré le rôle des habiletés cognitives spécifiques dans la relation entre les préférences d’apprentissage et la dimension visualisation-verbalisation des styles cognitifs à partir d’un échantillon d’étudiants inscrits à des programmes postsecondaires spécialisés. Les chercheurs ont administré une batterie de tests cognitifs et de questionnaires. Ils ont découvert que les habiletés spatiales permettaient de prédire le style cognitif, qui à son tour, permettait de prédire les préférences d’apprentissage visuel. La connaissance du vocabulaire prédisait le style cognitif verbal, mais pas les préférences en matière d’apprentissage verbal. Ces résultats suggèrent que des habiletés spécifiques permettent de prédire les styles cognitifs verbaux et visuels, même s’il n’y a pas de lien clair entre les préférences d’apprentissage et la distinction entre ces styles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".