Students’ Information Processing Skills for Each Learning Style on

Cell Biology Lectures

Nengsih Juanengsih

, Adi Rahmat

, Ana Ratna Wulan

and Taufik Rahman

Biology Education Department,Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Jl.Ir. H.Juanda No.95 Ciputat,

Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia

Biology 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

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