Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependent-field independent approach

Transcription

1 Journal of Vocational Education & Training ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependent-field independent approach Pithers R. T. To cite this article: Pithers R. T. (2002) Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependentfield independent approach, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54:1, , DOI: / To link to this article: Published online: 20 Dec Submit your article to this journal Article views: 8628 View related articles Citing articles: 7 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 08 October 2016, At: 21:00

2 Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 54, Number 1, 2002 Cognitive Learning Style: a review of the field dependent-field independent approach R.T. PITHERS University of Technology, Sydney, Australia ABSTRACT This article reviews the relevant literature in the area of cognitive style as it impacts on individual, vocational and organisational learning. The focus is applied to one specific, well-documented dimension of cognitive style, which has been researched and written about for almost 30 years. This is the domain of field dependence-field independence: a concept that relates to the relatively persuasive way individual learners acquire, structure and process information. It concerns how people perceive, think, solve problems and learn. This approach to cognitive style or so it has been claimed, has implications for the effectiveness of individual and organisational learning. Consequently, the available literature in this area was examined to review the development of current thinking about this concept, as well as to describe and critically evaluate the implications of the outcomes of theory and research in this area for vocational education and training. Background One issue that has continued to be explored in the educational, psychological and organisational research literature for almost 30 years is the concept of cognitive learning style. Cognitive style is said to be the relatively stable strategies, preferences and attitudes that determine an individual s typical modes of perceiving, remembering and problem solving (Messick, 1976, p. 5). They are thought of as the modes by which learners approach, acquire and process information, as well as including the consistent ways in which an individual memorises and retrieves information (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Messick (1996) has gone further to show how cognitive learning style goes beyond learning to involve an individual s psychological and social functioning. The concept is different from cognitive abilities, which are usually considered to be more domain specific. Cognitive learning styles, 117

3 R.T. Pithers however, are thought to be relatively stable ways in which a learner approaches a learning task across a range of different domains (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Kahtz & Kling, 1999). Abilities are rather about subject-content mastery and the individual s performance capacity in a specific subject-matter domain. Nevertheless, even this distinction has been doubted by some other workers (e.g. McKenna, 1990) who see certain aspects of cognitive style (such as field-dependence) as a nonverbal measure of fluid intelligence and spatial visualisation. Learning strategies, on the other hand, involve conscious choices about how a learner aims to handle how they will behave in a certain learning situation (Messick, 1976). Obviously, learning strategies can be affected by cognitive style, but although strategies may be adapted to be more appropriate to a particular learning situation, the underlying cognitive style may be much more permanent and persuasive. Therefore, depending on its strength, it may influence the choice of the learning strategies that the learner tends to adopt over a range of learning tasks. One major approach to the classification of cognitive style has been concerned with the cognitive processes of perception, memory and thought. This is an approach that examines a substructure of cognitive style, on the one hand, involving a global and holistic or on the other, an intuitive and analytical dimension of the concept (Allison & Hayes, 1996). The predominant approach to this subset of cognitive style has been the construct of field dependence-field independence. These are two constructs basically, which entail the way individuals attend to, recognise and structure perceptual patterns. They reflect the way pattern recognition is processed and retained in memory. The whole approach involves an individual s ability to perform perceptual analytic type tasks (Riding & Cheema, 1991) and it is derived from the substantive work of Witkin et al (1971). These workers developed and trialled a series of standardised psychological tests, the most well used and substantiated of which is the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). This instrument measures a construct that they called field dependence, which appeared to be based on what they termed psychological differentiation. Basically, this perceptual, patternrecognition test purports to measure an individual s ability to break up an organised visual field so that an embedded part or given shape in that field may be recognised and memorised as separate from the given field; thus, it is differentiated from the field. This process, over a range of given visual fields, enables the measurement of the bipolar construct field dependence-field independence. In a field dependent mode, an individual s pattern recognition is strongly dominated by the holistic organisation of the total perceptual field with its parts being perceived as fused. In contrast, in the field independent mode of perceiving, the individual is more likely to see the parts of the field as distinct from the organised ground (Witkin et al, 1971, 118

4 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE p. 4). These workers went on to argue, based on their research evidence, that the individual who performs in a relatively field-dependent way tends to follow the presented visual field structure. On the other hand, the fieldindependent individual tends to be able to break up a given field s organisational structure and locate a nominated structural part. Witkin et al (1971) discovered that field independent (FID) individuals, when compared to field dependent (FD) ones, were more capable of restructuring the perceptual field or imposing a structure if one is missing. They also tended to act more autonomously than FDs, and have a more social and interpersonal orientation; dimensions of the construct, which appeared to be relatively stable and persuasive (e.g. Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Nonetheless, Witkin et al (1971) were at pains to point out that being strongly FD or FID was neither good nor bad, and that scores on the GEFT formed a normal distribution. Since that time, the validity, reliability and usage of the GEFT has been evaluated by a range of researchers with the general conclusion emerging that this instrument appears to have desirable measurement characteristics (e.g. Thompson & Melancon, 1987) and that it provides reliable and valid data (Melancon & Thompson, 1989). Much is made of the use of the GEFT in the present article because it underpins most of the research effort and reported outcomes in the FD/FID dimension of cognitive learning style, since the early 1970s. For example, in the 1990s, this approach appears to have had a resurgence in the business and organisational behaviour literature, where researchers have used it regularly as a basis for studying decision making, information processing, strategy development and group processes in learning (e.g. Hayes & Allison, 1998; Leonard et al, 1999). Nevertheless, the focus of this article will be on the findings and implications of research on FD-FID, predominantly using the GEFT, in the area of vocational teaching/training and learning. Findings: individual functioning Witkin et al (1971) summarised numerous studies completed up until the time of his paper and using a precursor to the GEFT. This evidence indicated that: there was a relationship between the strength of FID and problem solving performance, where the solution depends on the individual using a critical element in a different context from the one in which the element had originally been presented; thus showing a connection between analytical and structuring abilities; FD individuals pay more attention to and remember faces; 119

5 R.T. Pithers FD individuals are more strongly influenced by the immediate social context and are more inclined to attend to and learn about social aspects of their environment; FD individuals show greater incidental learning for social material than do FIDs; with the use of the GEFT, a large number of liberal arts students showed a small, but significant sex difference with men, on average, being more FID. FD-FID Sex and Grade Differences Many subsequent studies have found no significant GEFT, FD-FID sex difference, in which men, on average, scored higher on FID. These more recent studies used samples of accountants (McRae & Young, 1988), business students (e.g. DeSanctis & Dunikoski, 1983; Kelleher, 1997; Murphy & Casey, 1997), as well as a sample of education students (Wieseman et al, 1992). There is not much other research that has indicated any consistent sex difference in FD-FID mean scores, especially in areas outside of the liberal arts, such as science, engineering, business studies or for that matter, education (Wieseman et al, 1992). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that these workers found that education students who received lower grades in an education course tended to be more field dependent (Wieseman et al, 1992). This finding has been replicated, at least in part, by other researchers in areas such as art and design (Fergusson, 1993) and in nursing courses (O Brien & Wilkinson, 1992). Tinajero & Paramo, (1997) used the GEFT in a study of over 400 high-school students, and found that both FID boys and girls performed better than FD ones in all subjects. They concluded that field dependence-field independence is related to overall academic achievement. Generally, however, research work relating academic achievement (e.g. grades) to strength of field independence is sparse, although a recent study has continued to indicate that it may be a salient variable at least with some groups of business students (Murphy & Doucette, 1997). Findings: suggested differences between field dependent and field independent teachers The following summary outlines the suggested main differences between FD and FID individuals found to date. Reviews and research completed by Brodzinski (1982), Saracho (1991) and Saracho & Spodek (1981) have indicated that teachers who score higher on FD as compared to teachers who scored higher on FID, tend to exhibit the following attitudes and behaviour: 120

6 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE rely on the whole perceptual field; look to the global context and tend to conform to the total field; search for information from facial cues; are more strongly interested in people; have a greater sensitivity to others with higher developed social skills; are more dependent on authority; tend to prefer situations that require direct communication with others. In comparison, FID teachers tend to: perceive objects as separate from their fields; more easily abstract an item from the field, and solve new problems presented and organised in different contexts; be less dependent on authority, and depend more on their own values and standards; be orientated towards active striving ; appear more distant and aloof; be more socially detached, but have deeper analytical skills; prefer occupations where they can work alone. Furthermore, Witkin & Goodenough (1981) have claimed that FID individuals rely more on an internal frame of reference and that they provide structure for stimulus complexes in which a certain shape may be perceived to be ambiguous. They were reported to be more likely to break up the visual field into its elements and often provide a different orientation to a field than the one suggested by its elements. Change in and the Development of FD or FID Whether an individual can learn to become more FD or more FID has become a greater field of contention since the 1980s. Originally, Witkin et al (1971) and other researchers of the time, considered that the degree of field dependence-field independence a person possessed and the amount of an individual s psychological differentiation were stable and pervasive, especially over the growth years (e.g ), although there was a hint in their data that a practice effect on FD was possible. More recently, following this lead, Murphy & Doucette (1997) using the GEFT, measured the FD/FID of business undergraduates and among other things, their year of study. They found that these learners became significantly more field independent and therefore, more analytically skilled as they progressed through their course of study. The increase in analytical skill is a desirable practice effect of university study, but is at odds with Witkin & Goodenough s (1981) view that learners tend to move to a more FID state by their mid-teenage years, further learning having little subsequent effect. Leonard et al (1999) also suggested the 121

7 R.T. Pithers possibility that cognitive style may be malleable. This view was based on their research in organisations into the ability of successful managers to take on or select or adapt to styles (presumably more field independent and analytic) needed in these positions. Another enlightening study in this area, was carried out by Rush & Moore (1991). They discovered that it was possible to train people to change the strength of their cognitive style. For example, FDs were taught the restructuring or analytical skills that FIDs tended to use more regularly and then to apply these in new problem solving. They improved their performance on two subsequent dependent measures. Thus, there appears to be an emerging implication from this research, that cognitive style in fact may after all be a reasonably flexible construct. Nevertheless, there is not much supporting research published yet in this area. It should be noted that even if FD-FID styles remain relatively stable, behavioural strategies in teaching or at work may be seen to be quite varied, reflect conscious decisions and be context specific (Steufert & Nogami, 1989). Major Findings: students and learners Many studies in the area of cognitive learning style have examined the degree of FD-FID in various vocational fields. For example, generally business students in North America, tend to be moderately field independent (e.g. DeSantis & Dunikoski, 1983; Young et al, 1989; McRae & Young, 1990; Keller, 1997). Lusk & Wright (1981) reported a study showing that engineers were, on average, more field independent than Witkin et al s liberal arts normative sample. Osipow (1969) examined vocational preference and scores on FD-FID. Special education students and nurses tended to be more field dependent, whilst home economics, dental, pharmacy and fisheries students tended to be more field independent. Students of liberal arts were more field dependent than those involved in mathematics, physics and chemistry as well as graduates of design and architecture (e.g. Derussey & Futch, 1971). Lusk & Wright (1981) found that their business student sample were less field independent than science and engineering students, but more field independent than arts students. This was a general finding of Witkin et al (1977b), who found that FID individuals preferred to work more in the less interpersonal, analytic domains, such as the sciences that, they argued, required greater use of restructuring skills. Relatively field dependent individuals were seen to prefer vocational areas such as education, which require greater use of their interpersonal skills. This was a finding supported by Wieseman et al (1992), who found beginning education students to be predominantly field dependent in their cognitive learning style. A degree of field independence is an 122

8 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE important consideration in many forms of vocational learning, because individuals who are more analytic appear to be able to more effectively use their differentiation and analytical skills in problem solving when the field is structured. They conceivably are also better able to impose a structure when the field lacks these components (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Major Findings: teachers. There appears to be a dearth of published research that examines the field dependence-field independence characteristics among teachers, let alone adult or vocational teachers and trainers. There is in comparison, a voluminous research literature that has used various types of student samples. Nonetheless, Pithers (2000) has data based on a sample of 170 vocational teachers of various sorts that indicates, on average, that these teachers (both the men and the women) are moderately FID, compared to the GEFT normative sample. In Pithers s data, there was no significant gender effect, nor one for the stage of their course. For another different sample, Saracho (1989) has shown, at least for early childhood teachers, that teachers cognitive style can affect how they interact with others and select either a more social or more abstract curriculum content. Saracho (1991), in another study, obtained data showing that FID teachers, as well as their students, were more contentorientated and, furthermore, that the cognitive style orientation of the teacher (as well as of the students) can come to affect their perception of their learning experience. For example, FD teachers reported more satisfaction with their students while FD students reported a greater preference and liking for socially orientated teachers. Teaching or Training Methodology Witkin et al (1977a) reported evidence that FID teachers preferred to use more formal teaching methods, whereas FD teachers preferred more frequent two-way interaction with their students. Riding & Cheema (1991) have summarised much of the available literature in this area and have indicated furthermore, that FID teachers tended to use questioning as an instructional tool, whereas FD teachers used this technique more often to check on student learning. Teachers who tended to be more FID tended to emphasise standards and during explanations of subject-matter content to formulate their own explanatory principles. FDs were more inclined to involve the students in structuring the content and in sequencing content in the teaching-learning process. Furthermore, FIDs tended to correct the learners and to provide explanatory feedback even if critical. FD teachers were less inclined to provide critical feedback to their learners. FIDs or so it was found, tended to focus more on subject 123

9 R.T. Pithers matter content and its coverage and were less inclined, than FD teachers, to worry about creating positive student classroom attitudes and relationships. Witkin & Goodenough (1981) had little doubt, based on available research evidence at that time, that the FD-FID cognitive style construct was associated with learning outcomes. They claimed that FID individuals, including teachers, relied on a more internal frame of reference when they were faced with ambiguous material. Subsequently, they were more likely to impose or provide their own structure; be analytical with material and be more likely to provide a different orientation to the visual field or subject matter content than the one suggested by its elements. These authors claimed that stronger FID individuals were more capable in all of these areas. These observations made about teachers whose predominant style and behaviour were either more FD or FID, tended to give more substance and detail to Witkin & Goodenough s earlier reports. Self-awareness of cognitive or information-processing style is not only an important issue in developing more successful managers of organisations (Murphy & Doucette, 1997), it is important for developing successful teachers as educational leaders. For instance, if FD learners tend to favour more structure and feedback in learning, and FID learners prefer more autonomy and less interpersonal interaction, then perhaps, vocational teachers should provide a variety of teaching methodologies to accommodate the range of FD-FID styles likely to be present in their classes. A simpler approach would be to find out the predominant cognitive style in the student group (i.e. FD or FID) and then match that style with the attitudes and behaviour of an appropriate teaching/training style (i.e. more FD or FID), examples of which have already been outlined. This approach, however, is problematic. One major problem is that FD-FID scores from the GEFT are conceived of as following a normal distribution. This, in practice, means that in any group there will usually be individual learners who exhibit FD and FID strength in various degrees. This means that if a teacher or trainer adopts one predominant cognitive teaching style to match with a similar cognitive learning style (i.e. FD or FID), they are bound not to connect with some of the learners cognitive style preference. It may be argued that learners whose predominant style is FD, who are exposed to teachers whose predominant style is FID (in particular, in areas such as management or marketing), become more FID over the time of their course. The question, however, of whether learners can modify or change their predominant cognitive style over a relatively short time period or whether individuals of different predominant styles (i.e. FD or FID) are more likely to be drawn to a different occupational area, is still a point of issue in the sparse research literature on this subject. 124

10 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE Nevertheless, Murphy & Doucette (1997) do have recent evidence that business undergraduates did become significantly more field independent as they moved through their course. They pointed out that this increase in analytical skill is educationally desirable and would be expected in a further education course. This evidence certainly has negative implications for Witkin et al s (1971) conception of FD-FID as relatively stable after the mid teenage years. Hayes & Allison (1998), having examined much of the literature on cognitive style and practice, have also indicated that there is a good possibility that cognitive style is, indeed, malleable over the long term. There is, however, another serious problem with matching the cognitive style of the teacher with that of the learner, at least except in the short term. This is the notion that in spite of any short-term benefits in learner-teacher satisfaction level, the approach simply brings about further practice and positively reinforces those information-processing attitudes and behaviour with which the learner (perhaps, as well as the teacher) is already most comfortable. In fact, in recent times, a range of workers in the field have pointed to the dangers of simply matching the cognitive style of the teacher with that of the student, other than for exploiting short-term benefits (Hayes & Allison, 1998; March, 1991; Sternberg, 1988). Their viewpoint is that, in the longer term, there are considerable benefits for the learner in developing a flexible approach to information processing or cognitive style. That is, when the situation demands it, the individual is able to adopt or adapt more FD or alternatively, more FID attitudes, characteristics and teacher leadership behaviour. What Steufert & Nogami (1989) have written for organisational employees can be seen to be important for vocational learners and teachers as well. That is, the employee or the learner may be better off in problem solving at work, applying a different style or degree of style characteristic than the one that they were taught during their education and training. The learner, therefore, needs to be able to learn to differentiate between different styles, practice a range of them and then, later at work, apply the most appropriate style or level for the demands of the context that they find themselves in at a particular time. Of course, this ability is needed by the vocational teacher or trainer in the first place. A vocational teacher or trainer who, conceivably, might then be able to practice and teach using a flexible approach to cognitive information processing. Nonetheless, the use of such cognitive style flexibility may be easier said than done if aspects of cognitive style, rather than cognitive strategies, are less malleable than some recent authors have suggested. There have been some important studies relevant to the issue of the malleability of cognitive style in the business field (see Allison & Hayes, 1998, for a review of these studies). Here, effective leadership in managing people of different information processing styles and of integrating 125

11 R.T. Pithers divergent approaches to learning and communication are seen as important issues; as they are for vocational teachers or trainers whose role is in providing leadership for managing teaching, learning and change. Unless integrative leadership is provided, separate sub-groups of learners with different predominant styles, may emerge and prove counterproductive to effective communication, learning and change. One approach, in this case, might involve a vocational teacher increasing the learners awareness of their own cognitive FD-FID style preference and how this can affect communication. Another approach discerned in the management and organisational change literature, concerns planning towards minimising diversity and developing a group composition of individuals with a similar cognitive style application (say, field independent) to solve a particular problem. This approach would certainly minimise conflict. It is an approach, perhaps, more suited to organisational development, than it is to vocational education and training where groups of students tend to come together already composed of individuals with diverse cognitive styles, though the process may work for small group learning about quite specific problems. Another danger with this approach is that the individual learners are not exposed to a range of styles during training. They, therefore, do not develop a degree of cognitive style flexibility; rather, they are more likely through further practice and feedback, to have their own predominant approach strengthened and this may not be the one later needed to solve the range of problems they face in the work place. In short, the homogeneous cognitive style approach to teaching and learning simply tends to strengthen stereotypic thinking and problem solving. In this case, the learners tend to continue with their own predominant style or learn the teacher s preferred, selective ways of attending to, processing and interpreting information that becomes self-validating. The learners may then become defensive to anyone else, including another teacher, who challenges their attitudes, beliefs and strategies. In practice, the issue of whether vocational teachers as well as their students should be aware of the range of cognitive styles (e.g. the FD-FID dimension), and how they might impact on problem solving or other learned performance has been addressed only by a few recent workers in the field. For example, Murphy & Casey (1997) examined field dependence-field independence as one aspect of cognitive style with a group of information management students. They found that these students were slightly field independent. They went on to suggest that their teachers may need to broaden their teaching strategies to include more group work and face-to-face interaction, strategies more appealing and perhaps, also more helpful to field dependent learners. In another study, Kahtz & Kling (1999), using the GEFT, examined FD-FID vocational college students in a horticulture course using 126

12 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE computer-assisted instruction (CAI). Their findings were congruent with the theory of field dependence. Field independent learners found the CAI to be beneficial, but when surveyed asked that the process be given greater structure. The field dependent learners in the group, however, in contrast did not think that there were any benefits when using the CAI programme. There is also some evidence that the field independent learners may prefer to enroll in distance education courses and limited evidence that they may, on average, achieve superior academic results in these courses (Lusk, 1998). Field independent learners may sometimes be better at solving agricultural course problems (Torres & Cano, 1995; Dyer & Osborne, 1996), as well as those in the area of educational technology (Griffin & Franklin, 1996). Nonetheless, the evidence which could be used to support the contention that a certain cognitive style strength (i.e. higher measured field dependence) leads to better learned performance is still not widespread, although there have been some positive findings in the nursing, educational technology and agricultural education areas. Studies such as these, however, have tended to use small samples, lacked control and are not convincing enough to allow reliable wider generalisation to other fields. Having said all of this, there is certainly limited evidence, in certain specialised areas, to suggest that vocational students who, on average, score higher on field independence may be at an advantage if the problems to be solved relevant to the subject matter taught, learned and assessed require significant analytical skill (e.g. Wieseman et al, 1992). Improving the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning Hayes & Allison (1998) recently have examined the research evidence about the issue of improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning. They argue that unstructured experiential learning will be less effective where the cognitive or information processing style of the learners (e.g. FD) does not match the information processing demands of the classroom. In these cases, increasing the structure of the subject matter, and the amount of practice and feedback (including critical feedback) will improve learning. Matching the cognitive style of the learners with that of the learning activity, so Allison & Hayes (1996) have stated, does work in at least some limited ways, to improve learned performance in 12 out of 19 studies that they reviewed. That does not mean, however, as has already been pointed out, that the resulting learning will transfer effectively to new situations in the workplace or to another similar context. Nor does it suggest that a particular style characteristic (e.g. FID) will always be the best one or the most suitable one for the new workplace problem to be solved. Nevertheless, matching the cognitive style of the vocational teacher to that of the students (which usually is not easy or appropriate, 127

13 R.T. Pithers as it will vary across a group of students), as has already been outlined, can have short-term benefits. One such benefit is that it has been linked to the initial development of more positive student/teacher attitudes. There may also be in some circumstances, the sort of short-term learning gains that Hayes & Allison (1998) have pointed out. The only matching type studies to examine learned performance in educational settings have found the process led to improved performance for only the field independent learners. Nevertheless, mismatching led to improved performance for more field dependent individuals. Hayes & Allison provide a quite plausible explanation for the dilemma: field dependent teachers fail to provide the sort of explicit organisation of material and well defined structure that is needed by field dependent learners. Concluding Comments Hayes & Allison (1998) concluded their paper by stating that cognitive learning style is a potentially potent education and training variable capable of influencing the quality of learning at the individual and at the organisational level. There is certainly support for this notion in the research literature reviewed here, using one of the major constructs in the area of cognitive style: namely, field dependence-field independence. The classification and measurement of FD-FID over almost 30 odd years, predominantly using the GEFT, has generated much useful data, and a host of theoretical conceptions relevant to understanding the wider area of an individual s more global or more analytic type of thinking. Cognitive style research and especially work on the field dependence-field independence dimension, certainly showed much early promise. This was especially so in terms of the practical idea of the vocational teacher matching his or her cognitive style to a that of their students, but now this simple approach has been shown to have serious limitations. Overall, the weight of research evidence in the area of teacherlearner style matching, has not led to many clear, long-term suggestions or solutions for improving learning and learned performance, that is as distinct from the possibility of reported improvement in classroom attitudes and short-term increases in student satisfaction. The approach, nevertheless, has certainly led to many suggestions for improving variety in teaching methodology and to acknowledgement of the importance of the teacher demonstrating and engaging in critical thinking and problemsolving behaviour of different forms. Furthermore, it has led to a notion of the importance of the learner attempting to learn and apply style flexibility, based on the type of problem to be solved. Fortunately, the simple solution of matching the teacher s and the learner s cognitive style (i.e. a teacher adopting a field dependent style and relevant set of behaviour with a group of students 128

14 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE who tend to be field dependent) has been shown to be problematic over the longer term. This is both during a course and later at work, where the learner may need to adopt a different style or information processing approach to achieve the most appropriate or the best quality decision or solution. In a general sense, practising and reinforcing mostly those attitudes and behaviours associated with either field dependence or field independence may lead to myopic stereotypes that in practice are counter productive in some work settings. If anything of enduring importance emerges from this review, it is the notion that vocational teachers, as well as students ought to be aware of the range of cognitive style and how a cognitive style concept like field dependence-field independence may impact on perception, learning and problem solving. Teachers and their students need to be taught to adopt a flexible approach to cognitive style attitudes, thinking and behaviour. All individuals in education and training need to develop self-awareness about themselves in terms of any preferred cognitive style characteristics (e.g. FD or FID preference), but then be able to select and apply the information processing approach (e.g. interactive or individually analytical), which best suits the new problem or situation. In short, the field dependence-field independence dimension of cognitive learning style research has certainly been relatively useful addition to educational research and practice, even if over 30 years it has tended to generate more questions than it has answers. It remains an area in which insights can continue to be gained about important issues in education generally, and vocational education and training more particularly. This is because the theory and research in the area of field dependence-field independence continues to provide evidence and insights into how individual learners prefer to attend, perceive and process information. It also provides insights about how they think and apply their learning to solve problems not only in the classroom, but also in practice at their workplace. Correspondence R. T. Pithers, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, New South Wales 2007, Australia (bob.pithers@uts.edu.au). References Allison, C.W. & Hayes, J. (1996) The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition analysis for organisational research, Journal of Management Studies, 33, pp Brodzinski, D. (1982) Relationship Between Cognitive Style and Cognitive Development, Developmental Psychology, 18, pp

15 R.T. Pithers Derussey, E. & Futch, E. (1971) Field Dependence-independence as Related to College Curricula, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, pp DeSanctis, G. & Dunikoski, R. (1983) Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric data for a sample of business students, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, pp Dyer, J.E. & Osborne, E.W. (1996) Effects of Teaching Approach on Problem Solving Ability of Agricultural Students with Varying Learning Styles, Journal of Agricultural Education, 37, pp Fergusson, L.C. (1993) Field Independence and Achievement in College Art: a reexamination, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, pp Griffin, R. & Franklin, G. (1996) Can College Academic Performance Be Predicted Using a Measure of Cognitive Style? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24, pp Hayes, J. & Allison, C.W. (1998) Cognitive Style and the Theory and Practice of Individual and Collective Learning in Organisations, Human Relations, 51, pp Kahtz, A.W. & Kling, G. (1999) Field Dependent and Field Independent Conceptualisations of Various Instructional Methods: a qualitative analysis, Educational Psychology, 19, pp Kelleher, W. E. (1997) The Group Embedded Figures Test: field dependence/independence and undergraduate commerce major, College Student Journal, 31, pp Leonard, N.H. Scholl, R. & Kowalski, K. (1999) Information Processing Style and Decision Making, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 20, pp Lusk, S.C. (1998) The Relationship Between Cognitive Styles and Academic Achievement, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, pp Lusk, E. & Wright, H. (1981) Differences in Sex and Curricula on Learning and Group Embedded Figures Test, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, pp March, J. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organizational Science, 2, pp McKenna, F.P. (1990) Learning Implications of Field-dependence, Independence: cognitive style vs cognitive ability, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, pp McRae, L. & Young, J. (1990) Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric data for a sample of Canadian undergraduate business students, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, pp Melancon, J.G. & Thompson, B. (1989) Measurement Characteristics of the Embedded Figures Test, Psychology in Schools, 26, pp Messick, S. (1976) Personality Consistencies in Cognition and Creativity, in S. Messick & Associates (Eds) Individuality and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Messick, S. (1996) Bridging Cognition and Personality in Education: the role of style in performance and development, European Journal of Personality, 10, pp

16 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE Murphy, H. & Casey, B. (1997) Field Dependence/Independence and Undergraduate Academic Performance in an Information Management Program, College Student Journal, 31, pp Murphy, H.J. & Doucette, P.A. (1997) The Group Embedded Figures Test: undergraduate business concentration and analytical skills, Journal of Education for Business, 73, pp O Brien, T. & Wilkinson, N. (1992) Cognitive Styles and Performance on the National Council of State Boards of Nursing Licensure Examination, College, 26, pp Osipow, S.H. (1969) Cognitive Styles in Education Vocational Preferences and Selection, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, pp Pithers, R.T. (2000) Field Dependence Field Independence and Vocational Teachers, paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Postcompulsory Education and Training, Gold Coast, December. Riding, R. & Cheema, I. (1991) Cognitive Styles an overview and integration, Educational Psychology, 11, pp Rush, G. & Moore, D. (1991) Effects of Restructuring Training and Cognitive Style, Educational Psychology, 11, pp Saracho, O.N. (1989) The Early Childhood Teacher s Cognitive Style and Instructional Behaviors, Early Childhood Development and Care, 49, pp Saracho, O.N. (1991) Students Preference for Field Dependence/Independence Teacher Characteristics, Educational Psychology, 11, pp Saracho, O. & Spodek, B. (1981) Teachers Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications, Educational Forum, 45, pp Sternberg, R.J. (1988) Mental Self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and their development, Human Development, 31, pp Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (1997) Are Cognitive Learning Styles Still in Style? American Psychologist, 52, pp Steufert, S. & Nogami, G. (1989) Cognitive Style and Complexity, in C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds) International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. Chichester: Wiley. Thompson, B. & Melancon, J.G. (1987) Measurement Characteristics of the GEFT, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, pp Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M. (1997) Field Dependence Independence and Academic Achievement, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp Torres, R.M. & Cano, J. (1995) Critical Thinking as Influenced by Learning Style, Journal of Agricultural Education, 36, pp Wieseman, A., Portis S. & Simpson, F. (1992) An Analysis of the Relationship Between Cognitive Styles and Grades, College Student Journal, 26, pp Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D.R. (1981) Cognitive Styles: essence and origins, field dependence and field independence, Psychological Issues, 14, Whole issue No. 51. Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. (1971) A Manual for The Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. 131

17 R.T. Pithers Witkin, H.A., Moore, C., Goodenough, D. & Cox, P. (1977a) Field Dependent and Field Independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47, pp Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P., Goodenough, D., Friedman, F., Owen, D. & Raskin, E. (1977b) Role of Field Dependent and Field Independent Cognitive Styles in Academic Evolution: a longitudinal study, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp Young, J., Keller, W. & McRae, L. (1989) Field Independence and Business Students Achievement, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, pp