Cognitive style of a future IT specialist in a teamwork process

Introduction. Training future specialists in information technology to work in a team has a great potential both for solving educational problems in the higher education and for further development of graduates as professionals in the labour market. The efficiency of the teamwork is largely determined by the effectiveness of the distribution of roles in the team. The distribution of roles depends on the individual cognitive characteristics of each team member. Individual enlightening characteristics of the ways of perception and processing of information, the choice of ways to solve problems are associated with the cognitive style of the individual.

Aim. The present research aims to analyse the nature of the influence of the cognitive style of the personality of each member of the team on the results of solving a practice-oriented task in the field of information and communication technologies.

Methodology and research methods. The work used a systematic approach (N. A. Astashova, S. L. Melnikova, A. P. Tonkikh, L. N. Shilenkova, A. Burger, L. Naude, F. D. Fernandez, J. L. Arco-Tirado, M. Hervas-Torres); practice-oriented approach (E. F. Fefilova, D. Bednarek, M. Krulis, J. Yaghob); project approach (L. I. Savva, E. A. Gasanenko, K. E. Shakhmaeva); cognitive approach (J. B. Watson, G. A. Kimble, J. Anderson, B. M. Velichkovsky, J. Kelly, J. Bruner, J. J. Goodnow, G. A. Austin, M. A. Kholodnaya), in the frames of which general scientific and statistical methods were used. The works by M. A. Kholodnaya, J. Parker, J. D. Bain, H. A. Witkin, S. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough, P. W. Cox constituted the theoretical and methodological basis of the study, on the basis of which the characteristics of students with different cognitive styles were studied. The analysis of the dependence of the success rate of solving practice-oriented tasks by a team of students on the cognitive style of each member of this team was carried out. The success rate was calculated as the sum of the normalised values for each type of work. 250 undergraduate students of Nizhny Tagil State Socio-Pedagogical Institute (branch) of Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University and Nizhny Tagil Institute of Technology (branch) of Ural Federal University took part in the study. The used research methods: questionnaires, testing, the method of expert assessments, ranking, scaling, rationing, content analysis of documents, methods of mathematical statistics in data processing, methods of analysis, synthesis, generalisation, comparison, abstraction when interpreting research results. The “Included Figures” test was used to determine the field dependence / field independence of the subjects. The main statistical calculations were performed using the nonparametric statistical method “Mann-Whitney U-test”. To confirm the reliable difference in the proportion of teams that successfully coped with the task, the Fisher criterion was applied. The data sources are open source databases (websites of international and Russian government bodies), regulatory documents regulating the basics of training IT specialists, research by leading scientists in the field of cognitive personality style, statistical information.

Results. The authors developed the criteria to evaluate the results of solving a practiceoriented task by a team of future IT specialists and defined the concept of a success indicator. The authors demonstrated the importance of taking into account cognitive personality styles when forming a team of IT specialists. The dependence of the success rate of solving a practice-oriented task on the type of cognitive style of the participants of the task was revealed. It is established that the highest results of the success rate in solving a practice-oriented task were noted in those teams that included students with different cognitive personality styles of field dependence / field independence, with a predominant number of participants with a field-independent personality style. The findings indicate the need to take into account the cognitive styles of individuals when forming the composition of teams for IT projects.

Scientific novelty. The results of the study expand the scientific facts that cognitive styles are predictors of students’ achievements in solving practical tasks in teamwork.

Practical significance. The data obtained can be used to develop a strategy for training future IT specialists aimed at improving the effectiveness of teamwork in higher education institutions. The proposed calculations of the success rate of solving practice-oriented tasks can be employed to evaluate the results of educational practices and final qualifying works.

1. Shamsutdinova T. M. Cognitive model of e-learning trajectory based on digital footprint. Otkrytoe obrazovanie = Open Education. 2020; 24 (2): 47–54. DOI: 10.21686/1818-4243-2020-2-47-54 (In Russ.)

2. Haidu F. The relation between students anxiety and cognitive styles. In: International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on the Dialogue between Sciences & Arts, Religion & Education. 2021; 5: 106-114. DOI: 10.26520/mcdsare.2021.5.106-114

3. Alharthi S. A., Raptis G. E., Katsini C., Dolgov I., Nacke L. E., Toups Z. Investigating the effects of individual cognitive styles on collaborative gameplay. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 2021; 28 (4): 23–49. DOI: 10.1145/3445792

4. Privalov A. N., Bogatyreva Yu. I., Romanov V. A. Engineering centre as innovative component of professional training of future IT specialists. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019; 21 (7): 90–112. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2019-7-90-112 (In Russ.)

5. Watson J. B., Kimble G. A. Behaviorism. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group; 2017. 251 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781351314329

6. Simon H. Nauki ob iskusstvennom = The sciences of the artificial [Internet]. Moscow: Editorial URSS; 2004 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 144 p. Available from: https://www.klex.ru/btt (In Russ.)

7. Anderson J. R. Cognitive psychology and its implications [Internet]. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers; 2009 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 469 p. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/17613920/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Its_Implications_and_Scientific_American_Explores_the_Hidden_Mind

8. Velichkovsky B. M. Kognitivnaja nauka. Osnovy psihologii poznanija v 2 t. = Cognitive science. Fundamentals of the psychology of knowledge in 2 volumes. Vol. 1. Moscow: Yurayt Publishing House; 2021. 405 p. Available from: https://urait.ru/bcode/471447 (In Russ.)

9. Kelly G. The psychology of personal constructs [Internet]. London: Taylor & Francis; 2020 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 810 p. Available from: https://www.google.ru/books/edition/_/-ALpDwAAQBAJ?hl=ru&gbpv=1

10. Bruner J. S., Goodnow J. J., Austin G. A. A study of thinking [Internet]. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1956 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 330 p. Available from: https://archive.org/details/studyofthinking00brun

11. Miller G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956; 63 (2): 81–97. DOI: 10.1037/h0043158

12. Neisser U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press; 2014. 348 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315736174

13. Bruner J. S. Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing [Internet]. New York: W. W. Norton & Co; 1973 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 528 p. Available from: https://archive.org/details/beyondinformatio00brunrich/page/n3/mode/2up

14. Kholodnaya M. A. Kognitivnaja psihologija. Kognitivnye stili = Cognitive psychology. Cognitive styles [Internet]. Moscow: Yurayt Publishing House; 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 307 p. Available from: https://urait.ru/bcode/474156 (In Russ.)

15. Kibalchenko A. I., Eksakusto V. T. Cognitive and style predictors of the students’ psychological well-being. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE). 2020; 8 (1): 1–13. DOI: 10.5937/IJCRSEE2001001K

16. Sternberg R. J. Epilogue: Another mysterious affair at styles. In: R. J. Sternberg, L. F. Zhang (Eds.). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. New York: Routledge; 2001. p. 249–252. DOI: 10.4324/9781410605986-10

17. Volkova N. N., Gusev A. N. Cognitive styles: Discussion questions and learning problems. Nacional’nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal = National Psychological Journal. 2016; 2: 28–37. DOI: 10.11621/npj.2016.0203 (In Russ.)

18. Zhang L., Sternberg R. J., Rayner S. Intellectual styles: Challenges, milestones, and agenda. In: Zhang L., Sternberg R. J., Rayner S. (Eds.). Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking [Internet]. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2012 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. p. 1–20. Available from: https://books.google.ru/books?id=Og8r-JGaXCDwC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

19. Cools E., Rayner S. Researching style: More of the same or moving forward? In: S. Rayner, E. Cools, (Eds.). Style Differences in Cognition, Learning, and Management: theory, research and practice [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2012 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. р. 295–306. Available from: https://www.google.ru/books/edition/_/WpLZT9O0iFUC?hl=ru&gbpv=1

20. Evans C., Waring M. The place of cognitive style in pedagogy: Realizing potential in practice. Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles. In: Rayner S., Cools E. (Eds.). Style differences in cognition, learning, and management: Theory, research and practice [Internet]. New York: Routledge; 2012 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. p. 188–203. Available from: https://www.google.ru/books/edition/_/WpLZT9O0iFUC?hl=ru&gbpv=1

21. Astashova N. A., Melnikov S. L., Kamynin V. L., Tonkikh A. P. Technological resources in modern higher education. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (6): 74–101. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-6-74-101 (In Russ.)

22. Birina O. V. The concept of successful learning in modern pedagogical and psychological theories. Fundamental’nyye issledovaniya = Basic Research [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 Dec 20]; 8–2: 438–443. Available from: https://s.fundamental-research.ru/pdf/2014/8-2/34575.pdf (In Russ.)

23. Shilenkova L. N. Self-efficacy in the educational process (a review of foreign research). Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Modern Foreign Psychology. 2020; 9 (3): 69–78. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2020090306 (In Russ.)

24. Burger A., Naude L. In their own words – students’ perceptions and experiences of academic success in higher education. Educational Studies. 2020; 5: 624–639. DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2019.1626699

25. Fernandez F. D., Arco-Tirado J. L., Hervas-Torres M. Grit as a predictor and outcome of educational, professional, and personal success: A systematic review. Psicología Educativa, 2020. 26: 163–173. DOI: 10.5093/psed2020a11

26. Fefilova E. F. Factors determining the success of solving the plot problem in teaching mathematics. Izvestija Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gercena = Bulletin of the Russian State Pedagogical University A. I. Herzen [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Dec 20]; 91: 179–185. Available from: https://lib.herzen.spb.ru/media/magazines/contents/1/12(91)/fefilova_12_91_179_185.pdf (In Russ.)

27. Vaseva E. S., Buzhinskaya N. V. Team building as the most important component of team-oriented training. Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya = Problems of Modern Education. 2020; 3: 116–123. DOI: 10.31862/2218-8711-2020-3-116-123 (In Russ.)

28. Savva L. I., Gasanenko E. A., Shakhmaeva K. E. Willingness of students of a technical university to teamwork as the basis of professional image. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovanija = Prospects for Science and Education. 2018; 6 (36): 56–64. DOI: 10.32744/pse.2018.6.6 (In Russ.)

29. Witkin H. A. Perception of body position and the position of the visual field. Psychological Monographs. 1949; 63 (7): 1–46. DOI: 10.1037/h0093613

30. Kholodnaya M. А. Kognitivnye stili. O prirode individual’nogo uma = Cognitive styles. On the nature of the individual mind [Internet]. St. Petersburg: Publishing House Piter; 2004 [cited 2021 Dec 20]. 384 p. Available from: http://www.bim-bad.ru/docs/kholodnaja_cognitive_styles.pdf (In Russ.)

31. Packer J., Bain J. Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1978; 70 (5): 864–871. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.70.5.864

32. Sergeev S. F. Learning environment tools: Intelligence and cognitive styles. Shkolnyye tekhnologii = School Technologies [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2021 Dec 20]; 1: 43–51. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266117133_Instrumenty_obucausej_sredy_intellekt_i_kognitivnye_stili (In Russ.)

33. Witkin H. A., Moore С. A., Goodenough D. R., Cox P. W. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research. 1977; 47: 1–64. DOI: 10.1002/J.2333-8504.1975.TB01065.X

34. Bespalko V. P. The quality of education and the quality of education. Narodnoye obrazovaniye = National Education [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Dec 20]; 3–4: 105–113. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kachestvo-obrazovaniya-i-kachestvo-obucheniya/viewer (In Russ.)

35. Bednarek D., Krulis M., Yaghob J. Letting future programmers experience performance- related tasks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. 2021; 5. DOI: 10.1016/j. jpdc.2021.04.014

36. Lange C., Costley J., Fanguy M. Collaborative group work and the different types of cognitive load. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2021; 58 (4): 377–386. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2020.1788970

37.