See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/374168932

Empowering Minds: Harnessing the Potential of Cognitive Field

Independence and Dependence in STEM Education

Article in International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · September 2023
DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i9/17955

CITATIONS READS

3 294

4 authors:

Rashidin Bin Idris Juppri Bacotang

Sultan Idris Education University Universiti of Malaysia Sabah
33 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 194 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Priyalatha Govindasamy Suppiah Nachiappan

Sultan Idris Education University Sultan Idris Education University
19 PUBLICATIONS 323 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 207 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rashidin Bin Idris on 26 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol 13, Issue 9, (2023) E-ISSN: 2222-6990

Empowering Minds: Harnessing the Potential of Cognitive

Field Independence and Dependence in STEM Education
Rashidin Idris, Juppri Bacotang, Priyalatha Govindasamy, Suppiah
Nachiappan
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i9/17955 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i9/17955

Received: 12 July 2023, Revised: 15 August 2023, Accepted: 27 August 2023

Published Online: 18 September 2023

In-Text Citation: (Idris et al., 2023)

To Cite this Article: Idris, R., Bacotang, J., Govindasamy, P., & Nachiappan, S. (2023). Empowering Minds:
Harnessing the Potential of Cognitive Field Independence and Dependence in STEM Education.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(9), 1504–1514.

Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s)

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce,
distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes),
subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1504
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Empowering Minds: Harnessing the Potential of

Cognitive Field Independence and Dependence in
STEM Education
Rashidin Idris1, Juppri Bacotang2, Priyalatha Govindasamy3,
Suppiah Nachiappan4
Faculty of Human Development, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Tanjung Malim,
Perak, Malaysia1,3,4, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, 88400
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia2
Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss the importance of cognitive field independence and
field dependency in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. It
discusses the critical topic of cognitive types and their impact on STEM learning and problem-
solving. This study intends to illuminate how educators might harness these cognitive features
to empower students in their STEM learning journeys by investigating the characteristics and
benefits of field independence and reliance. The study focuses on the success of field-
independent learners in analytical and abstract thinking, as opposed to field-dependent
learners' ability for holistic and context-based comprehension. It also looks into
methodologies and pedagogical approaches for accommodating diverse cognitive styles in
order to create inclusive and engaging learning environments. Recognizing and cultivating the
qualities of field independence and dependency can help educators unlock students' full
potential and foster a diverse range of problem-solving skills in the STEM industry. Finally, this
paper emphasizes the necessity of recognizing cognitive variety and harnessing it as a
significant tool for increasing creativity and achievement in STEM education.
Keywords: STEM, Cognitive, Field Independent, Field Dependent

Introduction
Cognitive processes, which include perception, attention, memory, and problem-solving,
have a considerable impact on how people perceive, process, and retain information (Riding
& Rayner, 1998). A thorough knowledge of how these cognitive characteristics interact with
learning styles and motivation is critical for establishing successful educational interventions
that promote academic achievement and STEM engagement (Idris et al., 2023c).

Idris et al (2023a) conducted a recent study that throws light on the issues and obstacles faced
by STEM education in Malaysia in terms of student enrolment in STEM courses at schools.
This study emphasises the critical necessity to address these difficulties and emphasises the
importance of investigating cognitive aspects in order to create appropriate solutions.

Numerous research have been undertaken to investigate the relationship between cognition
and learning styles, indicating individual variances in information processing that influence
learners' knowledge acquisition and assimilation (Chen et al., 2019a). Learners' approaches
to tasks and information organisation are shaped by cognitive styles such as field
dependence/independence or holistic/analytic thinking (Witkin et al., 1977).

1505
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Furthermore, people with a holistic cognitive style like to look at the overall picture, whereas
those with an analytic approach want to break information down into smaller pieces. These
cognitive styles have significant implications for instructional tactics and learning material
design to coincide with learners' cognitive preferences (Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999: Chen et
al., 2019b).

Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT)

Witkin et al (1977) proposed a cognitive theory targeted at recognising individual pupils'
cognitive tendencies in school learning. They believed that cognitive levels begin to develop
in children at an early age. Herman Witkin and his colleagues' cognitive theory has been
widely employed in social science research and educational studies (Sozcu, 2014). Based on
the proposed framework by Kurt Gottschaldt, a German psychologist, and the psychological
influence from Gestalt theory, Witkin et al. (1997) developed the Embedded Figure Test (EFT)
as a group test to assess cognitive and analytical abilities in the field-independent or field-
dependent dimensions.

Individuals are classified as field-independent or field-dependent based on the Group

Embedded Figure Test (GEFT) results. The preference for field independence or field
dependence may not always suggest a good or bad thing, but it may be more advantageous
in specific instances (Evans et al., 2013). It can, for example, assist in identifying appropriate
job pathways depending on an individual's cognitive abilities. Individuals with a field-
independent tendency tend to excel in fields such as mathematics, engineering, carpentry,
and agriculture, whereas those with a field-dependent tendency likely to excel in fields such
as social work, advertising, and sales (Witkin et al., 1977).

Furthermore, Rezeki et al (2020) indicated that students with field-independent cognitive

styles excelled guided inquiry learning procedures when taught utilising an inquiry-based
learning approach suited to individual students. Witkin's cognitive theory supports this,
claiming that field-independent individuals focus on their particular abilities without the need
for instruction or observation from teachers or others.

Aside from that, Tascon et al (2017) feel that students with field-independent and field-
dependent cognitive styles benefit in different ways from diverse learning environment
designs, notably in STEM education, which incorporates a variety of learning methodologies
across disciplines. Liu (2018) discovered that by using different information formats during
learning, students with field-independent cognitive styles could describe visual signals more
effectively in the classroom.

Following that, Chen et al (2019b) discovered that people with a field-dependent cognitive
style rely on external references or environmental cues while processing acquired learning
material, whereas people with a field-independent cognitive style process information using
internal perceptual cues. Students with a field-dependent cognitive style, according to Ho et
al (2017), benefit more from technology-enhanced learning environments than students with
other cognitive types. This is because graphic features and visual instruction help field-
dependent students excel in technology-enhanced learning environments.
This cognitive theory is also a variable that determines academic and vocational choices,
academic development, student learning styles, and teacher-student interactions in schools

1506
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

(Demick, 2014). The cognitive theory includes 18 questions based on a geometry recognition
test that evaluate cognitive inclinations. Two sub-dimensions of cognition are identified from
these 18 questions, represented by field-independent or field-dependent persons (Witkin et
al., 1977).

Table 1
Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT)
Field Independent Field Dependent
Students can easily rearrange information to Students face difficulties in performing the
perform the process of separating process of separating given geometric
geometric shapes. shapes.

Students are less influenced by social Students are unable to overcome the main
reinforcement in learning. distractors that hinder their focus during
learning.

Students understand the learning Students have a global and passive nature.
environment analytically.

They possess strong reasoning skills. Students possess moderate reasoning skills.

Students prefer self-learning over learning Students tend to work and learn in groups.
with others in groups.

They excel in problem-based learning that Students excel in social activities and
requires students to grasp the overall learning at school.
context of the learning material.

They have an individualistic attitude and Students have a collective and cooperative
approach to learning. attitude and approach to learning in groups.

They are not easily influenced by criticism Students are easily influenced by the
from others. criticism given.

They are capable of analyze and organizing They are capable of seeing the learning
the situations encountered during learning. situation globally but are unable to organize
it.

Students enjoy solving problems in learning Students require guidance and direction
without guidance from teachers or other from teachers to solve problems during
students learning.

They accept ideas that are reinforced Students accept open ideas presented to
through analysis. them.

1507
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

GEFT on STEM Education

Students with field independent cognition outperformed those with field dependent
cognition in terms of learning achievement and academic performance (Sujito et al., 2019).
Field independent students were more interested in STEM disciplines, with 60% of individuals
changing their career inclinations to STEM sectors after participating in STEM-related
activities (Donmez, 2021). According to Rezayat and Sheu (2020), extracurricular activities can
have a greater beneficial impact on STEM motivation than studying science classes. By getting
relevant expertise in science subjects, you can help develop interest in STEM.

Field independent and field dependent knowledge dimensions were diverse. According to Lin
et al (2018), collaborative problem-solving activities in learning increased the learning
outcomes of students with varied cognitive styles. Students who were field reliant had an
additional high-level knowledge dimension (evaluate) as well as various transfers of
knowledge deepening and cognitive process patterns. Through the learning process, they
were able to apply, analyze, and even reflect on previously acquired knowledge.

The impact of cognitive styles on learning outcomes in STEM education was investigated in
these research. According to Lu and Lin (2018), students with a field-independent cognitive
style were less engaged in collaborative learning activities than their field-dependent
counterparts. This implies that pupils with a field-independent cognitive style approach tasks
more independently and rationally.

Students with a field-dependent cognitive style, on the other hand, displayed a greater level
of knowledge dimension in evaluation, showing their capacity to appraise material more
successfully (Peng et al., 2018). Donmez (2021) focused on job choice changes among female
STEM students, taking into account different cognitive types. The findings showed that
participating in STEM activities outside of school influenced students' cognitive ability in
STEM. Students with a field-independent cognitive style were more likely to switch careers to
STEM professions, highlighting the importance of extracurricular STEM activities in moulding
career selections.

Setiawan et al (2020) further highlighted the influence of cognitive styles on problem-solving

abilities and mathematical reasoning. Students with a field-independent cognitive style
outperformed those with a field-dependent cognitive style in terms of reasoning and
problem-solving abilities, particularly in geometric areas. Chen et al (2019) investigated the
Flipped Classroom setting and discovered substantial variations in cognitive styles, with field-
independent students outperforming their peers academically. These findings highlight the
necessity of taking cognitive types into account in STEM education and modifying teaching
tactics to improve learning outcomes and engagement.

Overall, these studies highlight the importance of considering students' cognitive styles in
STEM education. Understanding the cognitive characteristics of students can assist educators
in tailoring teaching strategies and interventions to enhance learning outcomes and
engagement in STEM subjects. Based on figure 1, the researchers proposed a theoretical
framework for the study of cognitive relationships to STEM education and further implications
for career tendencies in STEM fields in schools.

1508
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Science
Field Independent
Technology

Group Embedded STEM STEM Career

Figure Test Education Interest

Engineering
Field Dependence
Mathematic

Figure 1. Theoritical Framework Proposed by Researcher

Discussion
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education is becoming
increasingly important for encouraging innovation, economic growth, and global
competitiveness (Idris & Bacotang, 2023). However, the success of STEM education goes
beyond topic knowledge because cognitive characteristics play a significant role in influencing
students' achievement and interest in STEM disciplines. Problem-solving, creativity, and
metacognition are critical for success in STEM subjects (National Academy of Engineering,
2014).

According to research, students with stronger cognitive abilities are more likely to prosper in
STEM schooling and seek professions in STEM subjects. Cognitive talents such as spatial
reasoning, problem-solving, and analytical thinking are strongly associated with STEM
involvement and achievement (Dutta et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Understanding and
harnessing cognitive variables is therefore crucial for increasing interest and success in STEM
education (Donmez, 2021).

The use of learning style and cognitive characteristic identification into a learning
management system has the potential to be revolutionary. This integration allows for
personalised instruction, tailored resources, and adaptive learning experiences, allowing
learners to embark on a path of self-discovery and educational advancement (Lwande et al.,
2021). Furthermore, STEM-based education has showed promise in improving elementary
school children's cognitive capacities (Firdaus & Rahayu, 2019).

1509
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

The cognitive movement in education emphasises the significant impact that cognitive
processes and metacognitive methods have on learning outcomes. Innovative instructional
approaches based on cognitive science can improve educational outcomes by encouraging
higher-order thinking, self-regulation, and lifelong intellectual progress (Di Vesta, 1987).

Students that have well-developed cognitive talents that are appropriate for STEM education
have a distinct advantage in analytical thinking, problem-solving, and critical reasoning. These
cognitive abilities promote exploration, discovery, and achievement in the fast-paced world
of STEM disciplines (Zeng et al., 2018). Teachers' and parents' support is also important in
moulding pupils' positive attitudes towards future STEM education and career options (Rivera
& Li, 2020).

Integrating cognitive science ideas and advanced technologies in the STEM classroom creates
a revolutionary learning environment. This combination improves instructional tactics,
increases student engagement, and promotes a deeper conceptual comprehension of
complicated scientific subjects (Butler et al., 2014). Furthermore, the cognitive apprenticeship
framework has been shown to be successful in developing the cognitive abilities and
knowledge necessary for success in STEM graduate study (Minshew et al., 2021).

STEM education has the ability to stimulate brain activity, foster curiosity, and build critical
thinking skills in preschool-age children. Early STEM education lays the groundwork for a
lifetime of interest and participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(Ros et al., 2016; Qureshi & Qureshi 2021).

Providing fair access to resources and creating inclusive environments are critical for
empowering primary and preschool students in STEM education. To develop interest in STEM
areas, it is critical to solve problems and provide engaging and equitable learning experiences
(Shifrer & Freeman, 2021). Embodied cognition improves students' grasp of abstract topics
and encourages holistic problem-solving approaches in STEM (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2017).

Long-term interventions in integrated STEM education can improve students' cognitive

function. They improve students' problem-solving abilities, critical thinking skills, and
interdisciplinary knowledge, equipping them for success in the twenty-first century (De Loof
et al., 2022). Participation in STEM projects and summer camps enhances the likelihood of
students majoring in STEM in college (Sahin et al., 2017).

Educators and researchers may build effective instructional strategies, personalised learning
experiences, and supportive settings that empower students in STEM education and
professions by recognising and utilising the importance of cognitive factors. Understanding
the relationship between cognition and STEM education opens the door to innovation and
excellence in these critical domains of study.

Conclusion and Future Agenda

To summarise, the influence of cognitive field independence and reliance in STEM education
is considerable and provides a plethora of options for mind empowerment. Field
independence and field dependency are unique cognitive processes that influence learning,
problem-solving, and general engagement in STEM fields. Educators can build inclusive

1510
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

teaching strategies that cater to the different requirements of students by recognising and
appreciating the strengths of each cognitive style.

Analytical thinking, abstract reasoning, and independent problem-solving ability are

demonstrated by field-independent learners. They flourish in environments that value
individual discovery and foster critical thinking. Field-dependent learners, on the other hand,
thrive at holistic comprehension, context-based learning, and collaborative problem-solving.
Group activities, hands-on experiences, and interactive learning approaches enhance them.

Future research should concentrate on many critical areas in order to fully realise the promise
of cognitive field independence and dependency in STEM education. To begin, future research
should focus on successful instructional methodologies and pedagogical approaches that
support both cognitive modes at the same time. To meet the varying requirements of
students, strategies such as blended learning, adaptive learning technologies, and
differentiated education might be considered.

Second, the influence of cognitive field independence and dependency on underrepresented

groups in STEM disciplines needs to be investigated. Understanding how different cognitive
styles interact with gender, race, and socioeconomic characteristics can aid in the reduction
of success inequalities and the promotion of equity in STEM education.

Finally, longitudinal research can shed light on the long-term impacts of cognitive field
independence and dependency on career choices and success in STEM disciplines.
Investigating how these cognitive patterns affect students' tenacity, motivation, and career
satisfaction might help shape educational policy and career advising activities.

Educators may establish inclusive STEM learning environments that empower all students to
thrive by embracing cognitive variety and exploiting the possibilities of cognitive field
independence and reliance. Recognising and supporting each cognitive style's distinct
capabilities can aid in the development of innovative problem solvers, critical thinkers, and
future STEM leaders.

Reference
Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science
and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review,
26(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9256-4
Chen, X., Zhao, S., & Li, W. (2019a). Opinion dynamics model based on cognitive styles: Field-
dependence and field-independence. Complexity, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2864124.
Chen, Y. T., Liou, S., & Chen, L. F. (2019b). The relationships among gender, cognitive styles,
learning strategies, and learning performance in the flipped classroom. International
Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 395–403.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1543082.
De Loof, H., Boeve-de, J. P., & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Integrated STEM education: The effects
of a long-term intervention on students cognitive performance. European Journal of
STEM Education, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/12738.
Demick, J. (2014). Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) manual (Rev. ed). Mind Garden.

1511
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Di Vesta, F. J. (1987). The cognitive movement and education. In: Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R.
(eds) Historical foundations of educational psychology. Perspectives on individual
differences. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3620-2_11
Dutta, A., Kang, H.-J., Kaya, C., Benton, S. F., Sharp, S. E., Chan, F., Da Silva Cardoso, E., &
Kundu, M. (2015). Social-cognitive career theory predictors of STEM career interests
and goal persistence in minority college students with disabilities: A path analysis.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 43(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-
150765.
Evans, C., Richardson, J. T., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the
evidence. The British journal of educational psychology, 83(2), 210-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015.
Firdaus, A. R., & Rahayu, G. D. S. (2019). Effect of STEM-based Learning on the cognitive skills
improvement. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 6(2), 198. https://doi.org/10.17509/mimbar-
sd.v6i2.17562.
Ho, S. C., Hsieh, S. W., Sun, P. C., & Chen, C. M. (2017). To activate English learning: Listen and
speak in real life context with an AR featured u-learning system. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 20(2), 176–187.
Idris, R., & Bacotang, J. (2023). Exploring STEM education trends in Malaysia: Building a talent
pool for Industrial revolution 4.0 and society 5.0. International Journal of Academic
Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(2), 381–393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/16825.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., & Nachiappan, S. (2023a). Challenge and obstacles of STEM
education in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 13(4), 820 – 828. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i4/16676.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., Nachiappan, S., & Bacotang, J. (2023b). Beyond grades:
Investigating the influence of personality on STEM pathways in Malaysia. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(5), 2749 – 2761.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i5/17136.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., Nachiappan, S., & Bacotang, J. (2023c). Exploring the impact of
cognitive factors on learning, motivation, and career in Malaysia’s STEM education.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(6),1669-
1684. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i5/17136.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., & Nachiappan, S. (2023d). Trends and considerations of self-
efficacy of STEM education in Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced Research in
Education and Society, 5(1), 208 – 215. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2023.5.1.19.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., Nachiappan, S., & Bacotang, J. (2023e). Revolutionizing STEM
education: Unleashing the potential of STEM interest career in Malaysia. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(7), 1741-1752.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/17609.
Idris, R., Govindasamy, P., Nachiappan, S., & Bacotang, J. (2023f). Examining moderator
factors influencing students’ interest in STEM careers: The role of demographic, family
and gender. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 12(2), 2298-2312. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/17609.
Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Lin, Y. C. (2018). A study of knowledge dimension and cognitive process
pattern of cognitive style differences in stem cooperative learning
environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(10),
720-724. http://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.

1512
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Lwande, C., Muchemi, L., & Oboko, R. (2021). Identifying learning styles and cognitive traits
in a learning management system. Heliyon, 7(8), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07701.
Lu, H. K., & Lin, P. C. (2018). A study on the effect of cognitive style in the field of STEM on
collaborative learning outcome. Internasional Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 8(3), 194-198. http://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.3.1032.
Minshew, L. M., Olsen, A. A., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2021). Cognitive apprenticeship in STEM
graduate education: A qualitative review of the literature. AERA Open, 7(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211052044.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in
K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.
Peng, C. L., Hsin, K. L., & Yin, C. L. (2018). A study of knowledge dimension and cognitive
process pattern of cognitive style differences in STEM cooperative learning
environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 8(10),
720-724. http://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2018.8.10.1128.
Qureshi, A., & Qureshi, N. (2021). Challenges and issues of STEM education. Advances in
Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 146–161.
https://doi.org/10.25082/amler.2021.02.009.
Rezayat, F., & Sheu, M. (2020). Attitude and readiness for stem education and careers: A
comparison between American and Chinese students, International Journal of
Educational Management, 34(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2018-
0200.
Rezeki, R., Sitompul, H., & Situmorang, J. (2020). The effect of learning strategies and cognitive
styles on learning outcomes of mathematics after controlling intelligence. Budapest
International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal 3(2),
1151–1163.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style
differences in learning and behavior (1st ed.). David Fulton Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315068015.
Rivera, H., & Li, J.-T. (2020). Potential factors to enhance students’ STEM college learning and
career orientation. Frontiers in Education, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00025.
Ros, S., Tobarra, L., Robles-Gomez, A., Caminero, A. C., Hernandez, R., Pastor, R., … Cano, J.
(2016). Work in progress: On the improvement of STEM education from preschool to
elementary school. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).
https://doi.org/10.1109/educon.2016.7474671.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences.
Instructional Science, 27(5), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00892031.
Sahin, A., Ekmekci, A., & Waxman, H. C. (2017). Collective effects of individual, behavioral,
and contextual factors on high school students future STEM career plans. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(S1), 69–89.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9847-x.
Shifrer, D., & Freeman, D. M. (2021). Problematizing perceptions of STEM potential:
Differences by cognitive disability status in high school and postsecondary educational
outcomes. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121998116.

1513
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 1 3 , No. 9, 2023, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2023

Sozcu, O. F. (2014). The relationship between cognitive style of field dependence and learner
variable in e-learning instruction. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE,
15, 2-10. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.11039.
Sujito, S., Budiharso, T., Solikhah, I., & Mutaqin, W. (2019). The effect of analogy variations on
academic writing: How Indonesian EFL students perform with different cognitive styles.
Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(1), 116-132.
https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/506/356.
Tascon, L., Boccia, M., Piccardi, L., & Cimadevilla, J. M. (2017). Differences in spatial memory
recognition due to cognitive style. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 8, 550.
https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffphar.2017.00550.
Wang, M.-T., Ye, F., & Degol, J. L. (2016). Who chooses STEM careers? Using a relative
cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(8), 1805–1820.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8.
Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Embodied cognition and STEM learning: Overview
of a topical collection in CR:PI. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0071-6.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-
independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational
Research, 47, 1 - 64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001.
Zeng, Z., Yao, J., Gu, H., & Przybylski, R. (2018). A meta-analysis on the effects of STEM
education on students abilities. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 1(1), 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.18.re005.

1514

View publication stats