learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The most influential member of the cognitive structure<br />
group is Witkin, whose bipolar dimensions of field<br />
dependence/field independence have had considerable<br />
influence on the <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> discipline, both<br />
in terms of the exploration of his own constructs<br />
and the reactions against it which have led to the<br />
development of other <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> descriptors<br />
and instruments. The educational implications of field<br />
dependence/independence (FDI) have been explored<br />
mainly in the curriculum areas of second-language<br />
acquisition, mathematics, natural and social sciences<br />
(see Tinajero and Paramo 1998a for a review of this<br />
evidence), although its vogue as a purely <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
instrument has arguably passed. However, FDI remains<br />
an important concept in the understanding of individual<br />
differences in motor skills performance (Brady 1995)<br />
and musical discrimination (Ellis 1996).<br />
Three tests are used to study FD and FI: the Rod<br />
and Frame Test, the Body Adjustment Test and the<br />
Group Embedded Figures Test. The Rod and Frame Test<br />
involves sitting the participant in a dark room. The<br />
participant can see a luminous rod in a luminous frame.<br />
The frame is tilted and the participant is asked to make<br />
the rod vertical. Some participants move the rod so that<br />
it is in alignment with the tilted frame; others succeed<br />
in making the rod vertical. The former participants take<br />
their cues from the environment (the surrounding field)<br />
and are described as ‘field dependent’; the latter<br />
are uninfluenced by the surrounding field (the frame)<br />
and are described as ‘field independent’.<br />
The Body Adjustment Test is similar to the Rod and<br />
Frame Test in that it also involves space orientation.<br />
The participant is seated in a tilted room and asked<br />
to sit upright. Again, field-dependent participants<br />
sit in alignment with the room, while field-independent<br />
participants sit upright, independent of the angle of the<br />
room. The Group Embedded Figures Test is a paper<br />
and pencil test. The participant is shown a geometric<br />
shape and is then shown a complex shape which<br />
contains the original shape ‘hidden’ somewhere.<br />
The field-independent person can quickly find the<br />
original shape because they are not influenced by<br />
the surrounding shapes; the opposite is true of the<br />
field-dependent person. The authors claim that results<br />
from the three tests are highly correlated with each<br />
other (Witkin and Goodenough 1981).<br />
Davies (1993, 223) summarises the claims made<br />
by the authors for field dependence/independence:<br />
‘According to Witkin and Goodenough (1981),<br />
field independents are better than field dependents<br />
at tasks requiring the breaking up of an organised<br />
stimulus context into individual elements and/or<br />
the re-arranging of the individual elements to form<br />
a different organisation.’<br />
Measurement of the instruments<br />
Overall, there are two key issues in relation to<br />
the cognitive structure <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>: the conflation<br />
of style with ability and the validity of the bipolar<br />
structure of many of the measures.<br />
Style and ability<br />
While he reports that measures of cognitive style<br />
appear to have test–retest reliability, Messick<br />
(1984, 59) considers that there is an ‘unresolved<br />
question … the extent to which the empirical<br />
consistencies attributed to cognitive <strong>styles</strong> are instead<br />
a function of intellective abilities’, since cognitive <strong>styles</strong><br />
are assessed with what he calls ‘ability-like measures’.<br />
In particular, he argues (1984, 63) that measurements<br />
of field independence and field dependence are too<br />
dependent on ability: ‘by linking global style to low<br />
analytical performance, field dependence is essentially<br />
measured by default.’<br />
That this weakness of the cognitive structure family<br />
appears to be particularly true of Witkin is borne<br />
out by empirical studies: ‘the embarrassing truth<br />
of the matter is that various investigators have found<br />
significant relations between the Witkin indexes,<br />
on the one hand, and measures of verbal, mathematical<br />
and spatial skills, on the other.’ (Kogan 1973, 166).<br />
Indeed, Federico and Landis, in their analysis of field<br />
dependence, category width and 22 other measures<br />
of cognitive characteristics, found (1984, 152) that<br />
‘all cognitive <strong>styles</strong> except reflection-impulsivity<br />
are significantly related to ability and/or aptitudes.<br />
Field independence has more (ie 10) significant<br />
correlations [ranging from 0.15 to 0.34] with abilities<br />
and aptitudes than any other style’. Huang and Chao<br />
(2000) found that in a small study (n=60, mean age 17),<br />
students with <strong>learning</strong> disabilities were more likely<br />
to be field dependent than a matched group of ‘average’<br />
students. Indeed, the construction of field dependence<br />
as a disability in itself is highlighted by Tinajero et al.<br />
(1993) who report on studies from the field of<br />
neuropsychology which attempt to link field dependence<br />
with cerebral injury, though the question as to which<br />
hemisphere is injured is an unresolved one. The<br />
theorists in the cognitive structure family take great<br />
pains to differentiate between ability and style –<br />
‘Abilities concern level of skill – the more and less<br />
of performance – whereas cognitive <strong>styles</strong> give<br />
greater weight to the manner and form of cognition’<br />
(Kogan 1973, 244; original emphasis) – but we are<br />
forced to conclude that if the measures used to assess<br />
style are too closely linked to ability tasks, then we<br />
may have what Henry Fielding in Tom Jones memorably<br />
describes as ‘a distinction without a difference’.