The cognitive style field-dependent/field-independent (FD/FI) which represents the learners' typical mode of gaining, storing, processing and using information, accounts for considerable variations in achievement among learners. Accommodating this cognitive style construct in the instructional design process may narrow the differental learning gain between FD and FI learners. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on the cognitive style FD/FI and to suggest some implications for educational technologists in their efforts to address individual differences among learners during the instructional design process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MessickS., Style in the Interplay of Structure and Process, in New Direction in Educational Psychology I. Learning and Teaching, EntwistleN. (ed.), The Falmer Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 83–98, 1985.
2.
CrossP. K., Accent on Learning, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1976.
3.
WallaceS. Q. and GregoryR. A., Cognitive Style: The Unaccommodated Variables in Training Decisions, Performance and Instruction Journal, 24(4), pp. 22–23, 1985.
4.
KirbyP., Cognitive Style, Learning Style and Transfer Skill Acquisition, The National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1979.
5.
DraneM. J.HalpinG. M.HalpinW. G.von EschenbachJ. F., and WordenT. W., Relationship Between Reading Proficiency and Field Dependence/Field Independence and Sex, Educational Research Quarterly, 13(2), pp. 2–10, 1989.
6.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R., and CoxP. W., Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications, Review of Educational Research, 47(1), pp. 1–64, 1977.
7.
RaganT. J., Cognitive Styles: A Review of the Literature, Interim Report, Brooks, Texas, Lowry Airforce Base, Colorado, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 174 655), 1979.
8.
WitkinH. A. and GoodenoughD. R., Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins, Field Dependence and Field Independence, International University Press, New York, 1981.
9.
WitkinH. A., A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Consulting Psychologist, Palo Alto, California, 1971.
10.
EkstromR. B.FrenchJ. W.HarmanH. H., and DermenD., Manual for Kit for Factor-referenced Cognitive Test, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1976.
11.
WitkinH. A. and MooreC. A., Cognitive Style and the Teaching and Learning Process, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1974.
12.
CalisteE. R., The Relationship Between the Group Embedded Figures Test and Selected Performance Variables, Performance and Instruction Journal, 24: 9, pp. 26–28, 1985.
13.
GrecoA. A. and McClungC., Interaction Between Attention Directing and Cognitive Style, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 27: 2, pp. 97–102, 1979.
14.
ElliotC. A., The Effects of Instructional Designs Matchecd to Individual Differences in Cognitive Styles on Concept Learning: A Trait-treatment Interaction Study, paper presented at the AERA, San Francisco, California (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 122 973).
15.
GrieveT. D. and DavisJ. K., The Relationship of Cognitive Style to Performance in Ninth Grade Geography, Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, pp. 110–118, 1971.
16.
ChinicnC., Examination of Cognitive Style FD/FI as a Learner Selection Criterion in Formative Evaluation, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 19: 1, pp. 19–39, 1990.
17.
SheriffD. E. and WilliamsJ. A., Field-dependence/field-independence and Instructional Development, paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, 1980.
18.
KeefJ. W., Assessing Student Learning Styles: An overview, in Learning Style and Brain Behavior, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, Virginia, pp. 43–53, 1982.
19.
GagneR. M., Development in Learning Psychology: Implications for Instructional Design; and Effects of Computer Technology on Instructional Design and Development, An Educational Technology Interview, Educational Technology, 22: 6, pp. 11–15, 1982.
20.
CronbachL. J. and SnowR. E., Aptitudes and Instructional Methods, Wiley, New York, 1977.
21.
CronoL. and SnowR. E., Adapting Instruction to Individual Differences, in Third Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd Edition), Wittrock (ed.), Macmillan, New York, 1986.
22.
AusburnL. J. and AusburnF. B., Cognitive Styles: Some Information and Implications for Instructional Design, Educational Communication and Technology, 26: 4, pp. 337–354, 1978.
23.
AusburnF. B.AusburnL. J., and RaganT. J., Task Analysis Schema Based on Cognitive Style and Supplantational Instructional Design with Application to an Airforce Training Course, Lowry Airforce Training Base, Colorado, 1980.
24.
SnowR. E., Aptitude-treatment Interactions and Individualized Alternatives in Higher Education, in Individuality in Learning: Implications of Cognitive Styles and Creativity for Human Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 1976.
25.
MessickS. (ed.), Individuality in Learning: Implications of Cognitive Styles and Creativity for Human Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, 1976.
