| The issue of this study is whether the cognitive style dimension of field-independence/dependence is related to performance at transferring rules. A rule was defined in its Gagne hierarchical sense--as a relationship between concepts. Two specific research questions were investigated. (1) Is lateral rule-transfer performance related to field-independence/dependence? (2) Is vertical rule-transfer performance related to field-independence/dependence?;Lateral rule-transfer was defined as the application of a rule in a context different from the context in which it was originally learned. Vertical rule-transfer was defined as the self-generated combination of two or more rules to solve a novel problem.;The lateral rule-transfer task in this study was the application of six basic rules of electrical science to actual physical circuits in a laboratory context. The rules had been learned in a written context, through normal chalkboard lectures in the classroom. The vertical rule-transfer task was the solution of written problems, which required the combination of two or more of the six basic rules, and which were unique in the subjects' experience.;Sixty-five community college technical students were tested for prerequisite rule-mastery, using an experimenter-designed written test. Fifty students demonstrated mastery of the basic rules; they became the subjects for the study. Each of the fifty subjects was tested on four dimensions: (1) Field-independence/dependence, using the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), a standardized test; (2) Piagetian logical developmental level, using the How Is Your Logic? Test (HIYL), a standardized test; (3) Lateral rule-transfer performance, using an experimenter-designed test, the Lateral Rule-Transfer Test (LRTT), which required the subjects to work with actual electric circuits in a laboratory; (4) Vertical rule-transfer performance, using an experimenter-designed written test, the Hierarchical Problem-Solving Test (HPST).;Subjects were classified as field-independent or field-dependent on the basis of their scores on the GEFT, relative to the sample median. A continuous score was obtained for each subject on the HIYL test. The LRTT was graded in two ways: First, each subject received a continuous score; second, each subject was judged on a criterion-referenced basis, to determine which particular rules he could laterally transfer. The HPST was graded in the same two ways: by a continuous score, and by a criterion-referenced judgment of attainment of mastery at vertically transferring particular rule combinations.;Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed on the continuous scores of both transfer tests, with field-independence the classification variable, and HIYL performance the covariate. The ANCOVA for lateral rule-transfer performance yielded results significant at the 0.01 level, with the field-independent subjects outperforming the field-dependents. The ANCOVA results for vertical rule-transfer performance were significant at the 0.05 level.;Three chi square analyses of frequency of attainment of lateral rule-transfer mastery were performed, for three of the six basic rules. All three were significant at the 0.05 level, with the field-independents showing superiority. Two chi square analyses of frequency of attainment of vertical rule-transfer mastery were performed, for two particular rule combinations. Neither analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups of subjects.;Two conclusions were drawn: (1) Field-independent students are superior to their field-dependent counterparts at laterally transferring the rules of electrical science from the written context, and this superiority cannot be attributed to differences in logical development; (2) Field-independent students are likewise superior at solving novel problems by combining those rules in vertical transfer. |
