Adaptivity in Learning Management Systems focussing on Learning Styles

and theoretical issues, whereas field-dependent people tend to be more attentive to the social frames of reference and are therefore considered as more socially oriented. Field-dependent people are described as warm, tactful, considerate, socially outgoing, affectionate by others, as well as know and be known by more people. Field-independent people are more impersonally orientated and are described as cold, individualistic, and unaware of their social stimulus value (Witkin et al., 1977). Several studies exist in the literature showing that field-dependent people generally have low working memory capacity and field-independent people have high working memory capacity (Al Naeme, 1991; Bahar and Hansell, 2000; El-Banna, 1987; PascualLeone, 1970). Furthermore, there are some relations between the field-dependent/fieldindependent dimension and the dimensions of FSLSM. Thus, this interaction can be used to make indirect relationships between working memory capacity and the dimensions of FSLSM. The thinking style introduced by Hudson (1966) can also be used for linking FSLSM to working memory capacity. According to Hudson, two styles of thinking exist: convergent and divergent. People using a convergent style of thinking are good in dealing with facts and bringing them together for solving problems that ask for one solution. This is the required type of thinking in conventional intelligence tests (Santrock, 2005). Therefore, convergent learners tend to score better in this kind of test and are defined as high IQ learners by Hudson. In contrast, divergent learners have their strength in creativity. They tend to be good in thinking in novel ways, coming up with Chapter 6: Improving the Detection of Learning Styles by Using Information from Cognitive Traits 122 unconventional solutions, and creating a great variety of ideas out of a given stimulus. Therefore, they are considered as highly creative learners who score better in open-ended tests where not a single correct answer is asked but learners have to use their creativity in order to find possible solutions. Bahar and Hansell (2000) investigated the relationship between the convergent and divergent cognitive styles (Hudson, 1966), the field-dependence/field-independence dimension (Witkin et al., 1977), and working memory capacity. Furthermore, they studied the effect of these psychological factors on the performance of word association tests and the grid type of questions. They conducted a study with about 400 students and let students perform tests to measure their psychological factors as well as a word association test and grid questions. For our investigations, only the findings about the interactions between field-dependence and field-independence dimension, convergent and divergent styles, and working memory capacity are of particular interest. According to the students’ scores of the personality tests, a significant positive correlation between the field-dependent cognitive style and low working memory capacity, and the fieldindependent cognitive style and high working memory capacity was identified. This relation is in line with several other studies, as discussed above. Moreover, the results of the study showed a significant positive correlation between students’ convergence/divergence test results and the results of the working memory capacity test. According to this, divergent students tend to have high working memory capacity and convergent students tend to have low working memory capacity. No significant relationship was found between the convergent/divergent style and fielddependence/field-independence, but tendencies indicate that divergent learners are more likely to prefer a field-independent cognitive style and convergent learners tend to prefer a field-dependent cognitive style. In summary, the study shows the existence of an overlap between a convergent thinking style, low working memory capacity, and fielddependence. In contrast, an interaction exists between divergent thinking, high working memory capacity, and field-independence. Another important link between working memory and learning styles can be found through literature on dyslexia. The term dyslexia refers to specific learning difficulty regarding written language (Jeffries and Everatt, 2004). Simmons and Singleton (2000) studied a group of dyslexic university students by comparing their reading comprehension ability with non-dyslexic students, and found that “dyslexic students were specifically impaired in constructing inferences when processing complex text” (p. 178). No difference was found between the dyslexic and non-dyslexic groups when literal questions, which only required information that was explicitly stated in the text, were asked. However, significant differences were found when inferential questions were given, which required the students to integrate more than one piece of information or use their prior knowledge to interpret an ambiguous statement. Dyslexic students did not do very well in inferential questions and the cause was found to be working memory Chapter 6: Improving the Detection of Learning Styles by Using Information from Cognitive Traits 123 deficiency (Simmons and Singleton, 2000). Calvo’s (2001) experiment of the readingspan task also provided evidence that working memory is essential for elaborative inference during reading by taking an important role in the text-integration process. The inferential ability takes the role of bridging the gap between the necessary semantics (Calvo, 2001). Beacham, Szumko, and Alty (2003) studied the effect of different presentation modes in online courses for dyslexic students. All students performed the ILS questionnaire in order to provide information about their learning styles. As argued by Simmons and Singleton (2000) citing Beech (1997), Hanley (1997), Nicolson and Fawcett (1997) and Palmer (2000), dyslexics have impaired working memory capacity. Although these studies did not clearly answer whether the relationship between low working memory and dyslexia is bi-directional (i.e., low working memory implies dyslexia and dyslexia implies low working memory), nonetheless they gave support to the argument that learners with lower working memory tend to have poorer reading ability. 6.2.2 Sensing/Intuitive Dimension and Working Memory