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.
Table 9<br />
Studies of the interaction<br />
of field independence<br />
and attainment with<br />
learners aged 14+ years<br />
Source: Tinajero<br />
and Paramo (1998a)<br />
Achievement in:<br />
Second-language acquisition<br />
Mathematics<br />
Natural sciences<br />
FI subjects perform better<br />
(number of studies)<br />
8<br />
6<br />
11<br />
Non-significant results<br />
(number of studies)<br />
0<br />
1<br />
3<br />
Social sciences<br />
3<br />
0<br />
Implications for pedagogy<br />
There is an underlying assumption from the theorists<br />
in this family that cognitive <strong>styles</strong> are not particularly<br />
amenable to change, since the idea of cognitive<br />
structure implies deep-seated and relatively<br />
fixed traits. The obvious implications for pedagogy,<br />
therefore, concern issues of diagnosis and ‘matching’,<br />
or compensation for the disadvantages of, typically,<br />
field dependence. However, Saracho (1998b, 288)<br />
warns of the dangers of matching FD students with<br />
‘socially oriented <strong>learning</strong> tasks’ and FI students<br />
with ‘abstract and less social assignments’. She<br />
argues (1998b, 289) that: ‘students could be denied<br />
the opportunity to learn the broad range of intellectual<br />
skills they need to function in society. Discrepancies<br />
among students would be amplified and students<br />
could be restricted by stereotyped expectations<br />
of what they can achieve.’<br />
In order to give teachers meaningful information about<br />
students, cognitive structure <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> should<br />
be demonstrably different from measures of ability.<br />
As shown in Table 9, Tinajero and Paramo (1998a)<br />
demonstrate that field independence is a good predictor<br />
of performance.<br />
‘With the exception of Witkin et al. (1977), all<br />
studies of the relationship between FDI and overall<br />
achievement. have indicated that field independent<br />
subjects perform better’ (Tinajero and Paramo<br />
1998a, 237).<br />
Tinajero and Paramo (1997, 1998b) are typical<br />
of later FDI advocates in that they willingly<br />
accept the interaction of field independence and<br />
achievement and focus their attention, in terms<br />
of implications for pedagogy, on ways of exploring<br />
field-dependent students’ strategies in order to<br />
improve their performance.<br />
Gender differences in the relationship between field<br />
independence and self-esteem are reported by Bosacki,<br />
Innerd and Towson (1997). They posit (1997, 692)<br />
that ‘[field independent] Attributes such as autonomy<br />
and analytic thinking may be more valued by society<br />
and, because they are traditionally masculine,<br />
may be more reinforced in males than females’. Thus,<br />
in this study, while there were no overall differences<br />
in self-esteem by gender, FI girls were more likely to<br />
have lower self-esteem, but FI boys more likely to have<br />
higher self-esteem.The authors urge caution in the<br />
use of descriptors or idealised behaviours which are<br />
limiting rather than empowering for pupils.<br />
Field-dependent individuals are described as more<br />
reliant on external referents and, as we have seen,<br />
this is generally interpreted negatively by researchers<br />
investigating achievement and cognitive function.<br />
However, the social abilities of field-dependent<br />
subjects may be advantageous in some aspects<br />
of <strong>learning</strong>. In a small study, Johnson, Prior and Artuso<br />
(2000) make the link between second-language<br />
acquisition and field dependence, although their<br />
measure of attainment (greater communicative<br />
production) is not the same as that employed in other<br />
studies of attainment in second-language acquisition<br />
(which tend to use test scores).<br />
Glicksohn and Bozna (2000), although studying<br />
an esoteric sample of bomb-disposal experts and<br />
anti-terrorist operatives, make explicit the link<br />
between prosocial FD preferences and autonomous<br />
FI preferences in governing career choice, when other<br />
predisposing factors – in this instance, thrill-seeking<br />
behaviours – are taken into account.<br />
Davies’ (1993) findings that FD subjects are more<br />
vulnerable to ‘hindsight bias’ – that is, the inability<br />
to imagine alternative outcomes once a result<br />
is known – are attributed to a ‘rigidity in information<br />
processing’ which reduces FD subjects’ ability<br />
to ‘engage in cognitive restructuring’ (1993, 233).<br />
This suggests that FD learners might need additional<br />
support in tasks requiring imaginative flexibility.<br />
Empirical evidence of pedagogical impact<br />
There is little strong evidence for improved outcomes<br />
for any of the <strong>styles</strong> in this family.<br />
Meredith is unable to find links between focus/scan<br />
(Kagan and Krathwohl 1967) and student appraisal<br />
of instructional effectiveness which were strong<br />
enough to support predictions, and concludes<br />
(1981, 620) that: ‘Though research on <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
and orientations are [sic] intriguing, there is scant<br />
evidence that these “cognitive <strong>styles</strong>” are strongly<br />
linked to instructor/course evaluations.’