Learning implications of field dependence‐independence: Cognitive style versus cognitive ability

Abstract

The relationship between field dependence-independence and learning has been the subject of much research. In particular it has been suggested that matching teachers aKd students on cognitive style may produce beneficial results. Much research has also related cognitive style to the way students learn, the way teachers teach, and the way students make choices and perform in various academic areas. While cognitive style has provided the theoretical framework, it is found upon re-examination that a contrasting interpretation in terms of cognitive ability is readily applicable.The application of cognitive style research to a variety of learning and vocational situations has now received a good deal of attention (Witkin, 1976, Witkin, Moore, Goodenough andCox, 1977a). Given the considerable influence and widespread implications of this work it is important that the interpretations offered are examined thoroughly. One of the factors which has been considered to be important in field dependence-independence research, particularly in the educational field, has been the concept of cognitive style. Two major approaches to a definition of cognitive style have been offered (Kogan, 1973;Messick, 1976). The major feature in each of these is the contrast between cognitive style and ability. For example, values are attached to abilities but not to cognitive styles. Thus, when considering an ability one end of the dimension is valued while the other is not. This is not true of cognitive styles, for which neither end of the dimension is regarded as better or more adaptive. Witkin et al. (1977a) consider this factor makes cognitive style much less threatening than an ability such as intelligence. It is also argued that while ability is concerned with the effectiveness of performance, style is concerned with the manner of performance.While the concept of cognitive style has been considered central to field dependence-independence theory (Goodenough, 1978), the appropriateness of this position has been challenged by McKenna (1983McKenna ( , 1984 who argued that the measures defining field dependence-independence do not justify as measures of cognitive style and are more appropriately viewed as measures of cognitive ability. As Messick (1979) has noted, measures of ability have had a long and important history in educational practice since they are related to school achievement and are useful in diagnosing learning strengths and weaknesses and planning instructions 0888-4080/90/060425-13$06.50

The Relationship of Personality and Intelligence to Cognitive Learning Style and Achievement

“…An optimist, though, might be impressed by the research effort that has gone into this topic, by the proliferation of ideas, and by the evidence already accumulated. Nevertheless, pessimists sound more profound than optirnists, and hence most recent reviewers in the field tend to be highly critical of developments in this area (Guilford, 1980;McKenna, 1990;Messick, 1984;Tiedemann, 1989).…”

“…McKenna (1990) noted that the concept of cognitive style has generated much research, particularly the way students learn; the way teachers learn; the concept of cognitive style matehing and the preferences of students for courses, teaching methods, and the like. But McKenna believes that the consistency with which research, for example, has shown field-independent individuals perform more effectively than field-dependent individuals contradicts the style conception and suggests a contrasting interpretation in terms of cognitive ability.…”

The Matter of Style: Manifestations of Personality in Cognition, Learning, and Teaching

“…The other type of critique is deconstructive in the sense that attempts are made to undo or discount the style as a meaningful construct or to discredit its purported indicators as measures of something else entirely, such as intellective ability. Examples here are a series of critiques by McKenna (1983McKenna ( , 1984McKenna ( , 1990 and by Tiedemann (1989). McKenna (1984) reviews numerous studies demonstrating that EFT correlates substantially with measures of analytical intelligence, especially Wechsler's -25 -nonverbal index and Raven's progressive matrices.…”

“…For example, Witkin points out that "whereas field dependence-independence is a process variable, representing degree of autonomous functioning in assimilating information from self and field, locus of control is an attitudinal or belief variable, representing expectancies of internal or external control of reinforcement·' (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981, p. 48). McKenna (1990)"also examined many of the same educational studies of field independence that Davis (1991) reviewed. but he reinterpreted all of the findings in terms of ability differences rather than style differences.…”

Cognitive style and gender differences in children’s mathematics achievement

“…As found with the use of the CSA, the scale used to measure field independence has been criticised. McKenna (1990) argued it is likely field independence is not measuring cognitive style but instead measures intellectual ability. In light of these criticisms, conclusions drawn from previous research involving these assessments of cognitive style are, at best, tentative.…”