Or he is one of those non-verbalisers.
The top performer in T2 was a wholist-verbaliser (mean dlv = 1.23) group.
Yet when considering the more detailed analysis of results involving the combined cognitive style analysis (CSA) dimensions involving wholist-verbaliser (W V), analytic-verbaliser (A:V), wholist-imager (W I) and analytic-imager (A I), the explanation was more complex.
Further, there was no practical important effect for wholist-verbaliser (mean dlv T1 = 1.25, mean dlv T2 = 1.23) and the analytic-imager (mean dlv T1 = 1.19, mean dlv T2 = 1.18) groups, on both treatments (T1 and T2), as they performed similarly with each treatment, yet the cognitive performance of the wholist-verbaliser group was better than the analytic-imagers on both instructional treatments.
There was an interesting finding with the ICS groups: the analytic-verbaliser group had a significantly higher average on cognitive performance with the T1 than T2.
The analytic-verbaliser group was the top performer when given T1 (mean dlv = 1.49), yet their counterpart was the worst performer with T2 (mean dlv = 1.03).
The total of N value for the ICS group for T1 was calculated by adding N values of all ICS groups (wholist-verbaliser, N = 43; wholist-imager, N = 29; analytic-verbaliser, N = 48; and analytic-imager, N = 44), while the total of N value for T2 was 141.
This figure shows the results in a graphical representation showing the interactive nature of the cognitive performance of integrated cognitive style (ICS) wholist-verbaliser, wholist-imager, analytic-verbaliser, analytic-imager for the two instructional treatments: T1 (text-plus-textual metaphor) and T2 (text-plus-graphical format) based on average dlv.
The final conclusions drawn from this research study indicated that, when describing the interactive effect of an instructional strategy on the means which individuals think of what they see (the 'verbaliser-imager' continuum): 1. Verbalisers perform best when given an instructional format enhanced with graphical metaphors 2.
