The effect of cognitive styles on the explicit and implicit learning in perceptual-motor skill
Poster Presentation
Paper ID : 1166-12THCONG
Oral / Poster Presentation File: 1086-12THCONG.JPG 1166-12THCONG.JPG
Authors
1MSc. Motor behavior, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2Prof. Motor behavior, Department of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
3MS.c. University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
Abstract
People have a different perception of the environment because of their cognitive styles. Cognitive styles are field dependent and field independent of a new topic in sport psychology and learning. It has also been shown that subconscious implicit processes are biologically more stable than explicit processes of self-consciousness. Since the learning characteristics of people with different cognitive styles can be different, the aim of this study was to examine the amount of explicit and implicit learning in dependent on the field and independent of the field.
For this purpose, 48 field-independent and field-dependent participants (each of 24 individuals) were assigned to four groups. A Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was used to identify students with field dependent and field independent cognitive styles with Coglab software to measure chain reaction time. So ANOVA was used to examine the possible difference in pre-tests and to examine the possible intra-group differences in learning stages, variance analysis with repeated measurements was used at a significant level of 0.05
The results showed that there was no significant difference in any of the learning stages among the groups with the interaction of the type of learning and cognitive style; however, in field dependent+implicit learning and field independent+explicit learning, a significant difference there were between the stages of the pre-test with other steps. It was also shown that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and retention stages in the field dependent+explicit learning group.
In the present study, there were no significant differences between the groups in the stages (acquisition, retention and transfer) between the type of learning (explicit and implicit) and the type of cognitive style. Therefore, it can be stated that the level of learning in the explicit and implicit way is likely to be almost the same. Despite the fact that in many sources, field independent is better than performance of field independent individuals, there is little research literature to confirm this statement.
For this purpose, 48 field-independent and field-dependent participants (each of 24 individuals) were assigned to four groups. A Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was used to identify students with field dependent and field independent cognitive styles with Coglab software to measure chain reaction time. So ANOVA was used to examine the possible difference in pre-tests and to examine the possible intra-group differences in learning stages, variance analysis with repeated measurements was used at a significant level of 0.05
The results showed that there was no significant difference in any of the learning stages among the groups with the interaction of the type of learning and cognitive style; however, in field dependent+implicit learning and field independent+explicit learning, a significant difference there were between the stages of the pre-test with other steps. It was also shown that there is a significant difference between the pre-test and retention stages in the field dependent+explicit learning group.
In the present study, there were no significant differences between the groups in the stages (acquisition, retention and transfer) between the type of learning (explicit and implicit) and the type of cognitive style. Therefore, it can be stated that the level of learning in the explicit and implicit way is likely to be almost the same. Despite the fact that in many sources, field independent is better than performance of field independent individuals, there is little research literature to confirm this statement.
Keywords
Subjects