Content uploaded by Nengsih Juanengsih
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nengsih Juanengsih on Aug 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on
Cell Biology Lectures
Nengsih Juanengsih1, Adi Rahmat2, Ana Ratna Wulan2 and Taufik Rahman2
1Biology Education Department,Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Jl.Ir. H.Juanda No.95 Ciputat,
Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia
2Biology Education Department, Indonesia University of Education, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Information processing skills, learning style, VARK.
Abstract: Information processing skills are one of the skills students need to have. These skills are included in the
lifelong learning standards. This study investigated the learning preferences (visual, aural, read/write,
kinesthetic) and comparing differences of information processing skills in each learning style on structure
and function of cell membranes concept. Students’ learning styles were analyzed from the-VARK-
questionnaire version 7.8. Students' information processing skills were analyzed from the students’
worksheet when learning using VARK approach. Students’ worksheets are prepared according to
information processing standards. The result showed that there are fourteen learning styles are grouped into
four categories, namely unimodal (9,09%), bimodal (40,91%), trimodal (31,82) and quadmodal (18,18%).
Information processing skills of the students who have multimodal is better than unimodal ones.
Information processing skills of the students with bimodal learning styles are better than the students with
other learning styles. Information processing skills of the students with bimodal learning styles in five sub-
concept (phospholipids stucture, cholesterol structure, membrane protein, passive transport, and active
transport) are better than the students with other learning styles, except for the sub-concept of cell
membrane structure, students with trimodal learning styles are better than the others.
1 INTRODUCTION
Currently teaching thinking skills is a topic that
receives a lot of attention. One reason is that
changes in society are increasing so quickly, that it
is difficult to predict precisely what content should
be taught to students if we define content as factual
knowledge (Marzano & Arredondo, 1986). Some
information produced by the community has risen to
such a level that individuals cannot control more
than a small part of it. The information available to
us doubles every ten years (Luckner, 1990).
Especially now in the 21st century, the rapid
development of technology that contributes to
information sources. Based on these facts, it is
necessary to have skills that can process
information.
According to cognitive psychology human mind
creates meaning through the stages of input which is
processing the information it receives, the output
that is developing responses, and how in turn output
can influence the next input (David, Miclea, & Opre,
2004). In cognitive learning theory this is called
information processing theory. This theory discusses
how information is processed in the mind and how
information is presented so that it can be processed
in working memory (Luckner, 1990).
According to information processing theory when
students learn, their brains bring information in,
manipulates it, and stores it ready for future use. As
shown in Figure 1, in information processing theory,
when students receive information, the information
is first stored briefly as sensory storage; then it will
be moved to short-term memory or working
memory; and then forget or moved to long-term
memory, such as: semantic memories (general
concepts and information); procedural memory
(process); and pictures. Thus when students learn,
they are actually showing information processing
skills.
Juanengsih, N., Rahmat, A., Ratna Wulan, A. and Rahman, T.
Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on Cell Biology Lectures.
DOI: 10.5220/0009914306590666
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 659-666
ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9
Copyright c
2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
659
Figure 1: Information Processing Model
https://lo.unisa.edu.au/mod/book/view.php?id=610988&chapterid=120209
Information processing skills are one of the five
categories of lifelong learning standards, these skills
can be used in many situations through a person's
lifetime (Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993). In
this study information processing skills were
measured according to the four categories. The four
categories in the information processing standard,
that is; identification of information components;
interpret and synthesize information; assess the
relevance of information; use information to solve
new things (Marzano et al., 1993).
Individual learning style refers to style or
learning methods used in the process of learning
(Othman & Amiruddin, 2010). The learning styles of
each person are certainly different and it is important
to know to improve their learning abilities (M.
Renuga and V. Vijayalakshmi, 2013). Students
process incoming information in different ways,
hence lecturers need to vary their methods of
teaching to ensure that all students learn. While
alternative approaches to learning can be used
successfully, it is thought that students will learn
more quickly and easily if they are able to utilise
their preferred style. Learning strategies used in cell
biology lectures are VARK strategies.
Table 1: The Vark Learning Styles
Learning Styles Characteristics
Visual Preference for using visual resources such as diagrams, pictures and videos. Like to see
people in action.
Aural/Auditory Need to talk about situations and ideas with a range of people; enjoy hearing stories from
others.
Read/Write Prolific note-taker; textbooks are important; extensive use of journals to write down the
facts and stories.
Kinesthetic Preference for hands on experience within a ‘real’
setting and for global learning.
VARK learning style, consists of four different
learning styles, namely Visual, Aural / Auditory,
Read / Write and Kinesthetic, where the VARK
system is proposed by Neil Flemming (Renuga &
Vijayalakshmi, 2013). The four characteristics of
learning preferences used in VARK can be easily
identified by students. These features allow students
to critically reflect on their field work experience to
improve learning as described in Table 1
(Robertson, Smellie, Wilson, & Cox, 2011). This
study investigated the learning preferences (visual,
aural, read/write, kinesthetic) and information
processing skills for each learning style in cell
biology lectures on the subject matter of the
structure and function of cell membranes. Two
reasearch questions were developed to investigated
the research problem:
1. What are students' learning preferences (VARK
learning style: visual, aural, read/write,
kinesthetic)?
2. How are differences between information
processing skills in each learning style on
structure and the function of cell membranes
concept?
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
660
2 METHODS
This study used one-group posttest only design. The
participants were 22 Biology undergraduate students
who enrolled in cell biology lectures at Universitas
Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, even
semester of the academic year 2017/2018. Their
ages ranged between 20-21 years. There were 18%
(n=4) males and 82% (n=18) females.
Two instruments were used for data collection in
this study:
1. The VARK questionnaire (Version 7.8) was
administered to the students to categorise the
different learning style and to give each
individual an idea of their perceived favoured
learning-style. The main reason the VARK
questionnaire was chosen was because it is
well recognised, straightforward and quick
toperform, and its results are easy to
understand. The instrument consists of 16
multiple choice questions with four alternative
answers. Each alternative answer represents
one of four modes of perception. each person
can choose more than one answer for each
question, which is needed to identify modes of
perception and learning (Shah, Ahmed,
Shenoy, & N, 2013). The VARK questionnaire
is available in vark-learn.com.
2. Student’s worksheet was administered to the
students to measure information processing
skills. there are four skills categories referring
to information processing standards, to assess
student worksheets by using an assessment
rubric.
In the first stage, the students were asked to
take up the VARK questionnaire. The second
stage, the students attended cell biology
lectures on the subject of cell membrane
structure and function, where lectures used
VARK strategies.
VARK strategies applied in learning Cell
Biology were delivered in four learning steps to
facilitate visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic
learning style. The learning steps used in this study
can be seen in the Table 2.
Visual strategies used were presenting 2-
dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) images,
and showing animated videos, the aural strategies
used were explaining the concepts discussed, In the
read / write stage, students were asked to read and to
make a brief summary of the structure and function
of cell membranes. The kinesthetic strategy used
that students conducted simple experiments related
to the function of cell membranes. The third stage,
the students were asked to fill out student
worksheets, where students answered a number of
questions developed based on indicators from
information processing standards.
Data of learning style were reported as
percentages of students in each category of learning
style preference. The number of students who
preferred each mode of learning was divided by the
total number of responses to determine the
percentage. Data of information processing skills
were reported as values on a scale of 0-100, with
categories for each value range 80-100 (very well),
66-79 (good), 56-65 (medium), 40-55 (poor), 0-39
(failed).
Table 2: VARK learning steps used in the structure and function of cell membranes concept
Learning Step Activities carried out by lecturers
Visual
a. Presenting 2D and 3D images of Davson & Danielli cell membrane models and
Robertson models
b. Presenting 2D, 3D, and animation of cell membranes of the Singer & Nicolson model
(fluid mosaics), and asking the students to identify the structures that make up the cell
membrane
c. Presenting images of the stages of frozen-fracturing techniques that prove the Singer &
Nicolson model, then asking the students to mention the stages of the freeze-break
technique.
d. Presenting 2D images of membrane lipid structures, and asking the students to
differentiate structures that cause phospholipids to be hydrophilic and hydrophobic
e. Presenting 2D images of phospholipid movements, and asking the students to mention
four types of movement of membrane lipids (flip-flops, lateral diffusion, rotation,
flexion).
f. Presenting 2D images of cholesterol molecular structure, and asking the students to
identify the part of cholesterol structure and its location in phospholipids.
g. Presenting 2D images of phospholipid membranes, and asking the students to compare
the properties of unsaturated and saturated hydrocarbon chains, determining which
hydrocarbon chains can cause membrane fluidity.
Ask questions:
Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on Cell Biology Lectures
661
Learning Step Activities carried out by lecturers
1) What is the condition of phospholipids at low temperatures?
2) What is the condition of phospholipids at body temperature?
3) What structure maintains the fluidity of the cell membrane at low or high
temperatures?
h. Presenting 2D and 3D images of membrane protein structure, and asking the students
to identify the structure of membrane proteins in cell membranes. Ask questions :
1) Does the protein on the membrane have the same structure? Based on the
picture, how many types of membrane proteins are there?
2) Does the type of membrane protein determine the function of cell
membranes?
3) Are membrane proteins amphiphatic, as is in phospholipids?
4) How do membrane proteins associate with lipid bilayers? (integral &
peripheral)
i. Presenting 2D and 3D images mixing mice hybrid cell membrane proteins with
humans.
Ask questions:
1) What evidence can be obtained from the experiment?
2) Can membrane proteins move in lipid bilayers? (parallel rotation diffusion,
perpendicular rotation diffusion, lateral diffusion)
j. Presenting 2D image of the membrane carbohydrate structure, and asking the students
to mention the structure of any carbohydrates present in the membrane (glycolipids,
glycoproteins, transmembrane proteoglycans)
k. Presenting 2D images of asymmetric deployment of phospholipids and glycolipids, and
asking the students to compare the types of phospholipids that make up the inner and
outer monolayers.
l. Asking the students to make conclusions about the structure of cell membranes that
follow the fluid mosaic model. Asking the students to explain again the meaning of the
word mosaic and the word fluid
m. Asking the students to observe the permeability chart of lipid bilayers. Asking
the students to identify, molecular classes that can and cannot pass through lipid
bilayers.
n. Presenting diagrams and animations of substance transport mechanisms.
Ask questions :
1) What distinguishes channel protein and carrier protein ?
2) What is the difference between active and passive transport?
3) What is the difference between primary and secondary active transport?
o. Presenting diagrams and animations of macro molecular transport through membranes.
Requesting students to distinguish between endocytosis and exocytosis.
Aural
a. Explaining differences in Davson & Danielli cell membrane structures, Robertson
models and Singer & Nicolson models.
b. Explaining the structure of membrane lipids, the type of motion of lipid membranes,
the fluidity of lipid bilayers.
b. Explaining the structure of the membrane protein, the type of motion of the membrane
protein, the types of membrane proteins and their function.
c. Explaining the membrane structure of carbohydrates and the function of glycocalyx
(peripheral regions outside the carbohydrate-rich membrane).
d. Explaining the principles of active and passive transport, differences in channel and
carrier protein types, differences in primary and secondary active transport, differences
in endocytosis and exocytosis
Read / Write a. Asking the students to read plasma membrane material in textbooks
b. Asking the students to make a short resume regarding the structure and function of cell
membranes
Kinesthetic a. Asking the students to group (5 groups), and asking the students to conduct
experiments related to membrane transport (diffusion and osmosis).
Give problem questions:
1) How can solutes cross the cell membrane? Example in the case of soaking a
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
662
Learning Step Activities carried out by lecturers
piece of potato inside colored solution. Asking the students to make a
hypotheses and their reasons.
2) What happens to plant cells stored in hypertonic and hypotonic
environments? Asking the students tomake a hypotheses and their reasons .
3) Does the temperature have an effect on the
substance content in soluble substances ?
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Twenty-two students, 4 males (18%) and 18 females
(82%) completed the VARK questionnaire. The
responses were tallied and assessed for learning style
preference. As shown in Table 3, fourteen types of
learning preferences emerged from this study. All
fourteen learning styles are grouped into four
categories, namely unimodal (9,09%), bimodal
(40,91%), trimodal (31,82) and quadmodal
(18,18%). This result indicates that most of the
students prefer more than one learning style. It is
understood that almost all the students belong to
multimodal learning style.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics Showing Students' Learning
Style (N = 22)
VARK mode Frequency Percent
Unimodal
Visual (strong) 1 4,55
Aural (mild) 1 4,55
Total 2 9,09
Multimodal
Bimodal
Aural & Kinesthetic (AK) 3 13,64
Aural & Read/Write (AR) 1 4,55
Aural & Visual (AV) 1 4,55
Read/Write & Aural (RA) 1 4,55
Read/Write & Kinesthetic
(RK)
1 4,55
Kinesthetic & Aural (KA) 2 9,09
Total 9 40,91
Trimodal
Aural, Read/Write &
Kinesthetic (ARK)
2 9,09
Aural, Read/Write &
Visual (ARV)
1 4,55
Read/Write, Kinesthetic &
Aural (RKA)
2 9,09
Kinesthetic, Aural &
Visual (KAV)
2 9,09
Total 7 31,82
Quadmodal
Read/Write, Aural,
Kinesthetic & Visual
1 4,55
VARK mode Frequency Percent
(RAKV)
Visual, Aural, Read/Write
& Kinesthetic (VARK)
1 4,55
Total 2 18,18
In the bimodal learning style, from the 7
students (78%), one of their learning styles is aural.
In trimodal learning styles, from the 7 students
(100%), one of their learning styles is aural. In
quadmodal learning styles, from the 2 students
(100%), one of their learning styles is aural. thus it
can be said that aural is the most dominant learning
style possessed by students who attended cell
biology lectures.
In conducting information processing, the
students were asked to work on student worksheets
consisting of six questions related to the subject
matter of the structure and function of cell
membranes, and it was done within twenty-five
minutes. Table 4 shows the differences in students'
information processing skills based on learning
styles.
Based on the data in table 4, it can be seen that
the first, information processing skills of students
who have multimodal is better than unimodal ones,
this is consistent with previous research that students
will achieve the maximum benefit from a
combination of approaches to learning (Dyne,
Taylor, & Boulton-Lewis, 1994).
Table 4: The Differences in Students' Information
Processing Skills Based on Learning Styles
VARK
mode
Indicator of Information
Processing Skills
Average
A* B* C* D*
Unimodal 64 40 17 18 35
Bimodal 72 73 44 37 56
Trimodal 72 71 31 27 50
Quadmodal 70 58 8 26 41
*A : Identification of information components
*B : Interpretation of information
*C : Relevance of information / relations between information
*D : Use information to solve new things
Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on Cell Biology Lectures
663
The second, Information processing skills of
the students with bimodal learning styles were better
than the students with other learning styles.
Although the value obtained was still in the medium
category. The Third, In indicators A and B, it can be
seen that values of the student with bimodal and
trimodal learning styles was in good categorized.
From the data obtained it is shown that learning
styles have a profound impact on learning
(Robertson et al., 2011).
In table 4, we can also obtain information that
for 2 indicators of information processing skills,
namely C and D, all students in the unimodal,
bimodal, trimodal and quadmodal learning style
groups had low scores. These results indicate that
students have difficulty in finding the relevance of
the information components they have discovered
from the object being observed. Likewise in using
the information that has been obtained to solve new
problems.
Figure 2: The Differences of Students Information Processing Skills Based on Learning Styles in Each Sub Concept.
Based on the data in Figure 2, it appears that
information processing skills of the students with
bimodal learning styles in five sub-concept
(phospholipids stucture, cholesterol structure,
membrane protein, passive transport, and active
transport) were better than the students with other
learning styles, except for the sub-concept of cell
membrane structure, the students with trimodal
learning styles were better than others.
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
664
The data in Figure 2 shows that in general
students' information processing skills are still
categorized as poor (40-45) and failed (0-39). The
reason that is suspected to be the cause of low
information processing skills is the incompatibility
of the characteristics of concepts learned with
student learning styles. As previously known that the
most dominant learning style is aural (see Table 3),
while the characteristics of the cell membrane's
structure and function concept are visual. The point
of visual here is that to understand the concept of
cell membrane structure and function must be
through image observation or animation when it
relates to a process. So when students with an aural
learning style are asked to process information from
pictures, they will face difficulties. Thus it can be
said that the cognitive system of students is
burdened with tasks, as stated by Sweller that if in a
learning there are tasks that burden the cognitive
system of students it will cause cognitive load
(Sweller, 1988). If we connect it to information
processing, then when students process information
related to the concept of structure and function of
cell membranes, in student working memory or
short-term memory (short-term memory can only
accommodate seven pieces of information at a time)
received excess information. There is a limit to the
amount of information that students can follow and
process effectively. When too much information is
presented at one time, our short-term memory
becomes overwhelmed and unable to process it
(Luckner, 1990).
In accordance with cognitive load theory, total
cognitive load consists of three components of
cognitive load, namely intrinsic cognitive load
(ICL), extraneous cognitive load (ECL), and
germane cognitive load (GCL). ICL is related to the
burden of processing information received (Rahmat
& Hindriana, 2014). This component has
simultaneous interconnections with working
memory in constructing cognitive schemes (Moreno
& Park, 2010). Thus information processing skills in
this study can simultaneously show the ICL of
students.
The results of this study indicate that even
though students have been facilitated with learning
that is appropriate to the learning style with VARK
strategy, the ICL of students is still high; it is
indicated by the value of information processing
skills which is generally poor and failed categorized.
ICL is a cognitive load formed due to the complexity
of high teaching material and the material has a high
interconnection (Sweller & Chandler, 1994).
On the subject of the structure and function of
cell membranes, students are expected to be able to
analyze each structure of the cell membrane
components, and relate it to its function. then
connect the function of each component to the
function of the cell membrane. seeing the
complexity of this subject matter, it is thought to be
the cause of the low information processing skills.
The implication of the results of this study is
that other efforts are needed to further simplify the
presentation of the structure and function cell
membrane concept, so that later it can more easily
receive information, process, store, and recall the
concepts learned in this case information processing
skills can be better. Some possible strategies that can
be done in learning the structure and function cell
membrane concept are, the first, present a small
amount of information and facilitate students to
practice after each section, so that what we teach can
be processed in working memory. The second is
reviewing or summarizing the main points of
information being studied. The third extensive
practice and frequent reviews are needed after the
material is first learned (Luckner, 1990).
4 CONCLUSIONS
There are fourteen learning styles grouped into
four categories, namely unimodal (9,09%), bimodal
(40,91%), trimodal (31,82) and quadmodal
(18,18%). It is understood that almost all the
students belong to multimodal learning style.
Information processing skills of the students who
have multimodal is better than unimodal ones.
Information processing skills of the students with
bimodal learning styles are better than the students
with other learning styles. Information processing
skills of the students with bimodal learning styles
in five sub-concept (phospholipids stucture,
cholesterol structure, membrane protein, passive
transport, and active transport) are better than the
students with other learning styles, except for the
sub-concept of cell membrane structure, the students
with trimodal learning styles are better than others.
REFERENCES
David, D., Miclea, M., & Opre, A. (2004). The
Information-Processing Approach to the Human Mind:
Basics and Beyond. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
60(4), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10250
Dyne, A. M., Taylor, P. G., & Boulton-Lewis, G. M.
(1994). Information processing and the learning
context: an analysis from recent perspectives in
cognitive psychology. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 64(3), 359–372.
Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on Cell Biology Lectures
665
Luckner, J. L. (1990). Information Processing :
Implications for Educators. The Clearing House,
64(2), 99–102.
M. Renuga and V. Vijayalakshmi. (2013). Applying Vark
Principles To Impart Interpersonal Skills To The
Students With Multimodal Learning Styles. Life
Science Journal, 10(2), 55–60.
Marzano, R. J., & Arredondo, D. E. (1986).
8.Restructuring Schools through the Teaching of
Thinking Skills. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 20.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1995.094.01.08
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993).
Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment
Using the Dimensions of Learning Model.
https://doi.org/ED419696
Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory :
Historical Development and Relation to Other
Theories. In Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 9–28).
Othman, N., & Amiruddin, M. H. (2010). Different
perspectives of learning styles from VARK model.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(2), 652–
660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.088
Rahmat, A., & Hindriana, A. F. (2014). Beban Kognitif
Mahasiswa Dalam Pembelajaran Fungsi Terintegrasi
Struktur Tumbuhan Berbasis Dimensi Belajar. Jurnal
Ilmu Pendidikan, 20(1), 66–74.
Robertson, L., Smellie, T., Wilson, P., & Cox, L. (2011).
Learning styles and fieldwork education : Students ’
perspectives. New Zealand Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 58(1), 36–40.
Shah, K., Ahmed, J., Shenoy, N., & N, S. (2013). How
different are students and their learning styles?
International Journal of Research in Medical
Sciences, 1(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-
6012.ijrms20130808
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving:
Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–
285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why Some Material Is
Difficult to Learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3),
185–223.
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
666
