Subjects (N = 221 undergraduate and graduate students) were randomly assigned printed study materials matched/mismatched with their cognitive style. Field independence and field dependence were the stylistic dimensions considered. Multivariate and univariate analyses yielded significant differences in achievement and attitudes as a function of cognitive style and college status but not of matching/mismatching instruction to cognitive style. Educational implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BieriJ.AtkinsA. L.BriarsS.LeamanR. L.MillerH.TripodiT. (1966) Clinical and social judgment: The discrimination of behavioral information. New York: Wiley.
2.
DouglassC. B. (1978, March-April) The effect of field-dependence-independence and instructional sequence on the achievement of high school biology students. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Toronto, Canada.
3.
DouglassC. B.KahleJ. B. (1978) The effects of instructional sequence and cognitive style on the achievement of high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 407–412.
4.
GrecoA. A.McClungC. (1979) Interaction between attention directing and cognitive style. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 27, 97–102.
5.
HorakV. M.ZwengM. J. (1978, April) The effects of inductive-deductive teaching methods and field-dependence-independence cognitive style upon student achievement in mathematics. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Diego, CA.
6.
KoganN. (1971) Educational implications of cognitive styles. In LesserG. S. (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Pp. 242–292.
7.
McLeodD. B.AdamsV. M. (1977, April) Relating field independence and a discovery approach to learning mathematics: A trait-treatment interaction study. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
8.
MessickS. (1984) The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59–74.
9.
OhnmachtF. W. (1968) Factorial invariance of the teacher characteristics schedule and measures of two cognitive styles. Journal of Psychology, 69, 193–199.
10.
RainsM. J.MeinkeD. L. (1976, April) Effects of cognitive style, group structure, instructions, and training sequence upon acquisition and transfer in concept attainment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
11.
RootJ. R.GallM. D. (1979) The interaction between learner characteristics and two methods of college instruction: Conventional and mastery learning. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
12.
ScottN. (1981) Cognitive style and instructional materials for medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 56, 565–571.
13.
SheriffD. E.WilliamsJ. A. (1980, April) Field-dependence/field independence and instructional development. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO.
14.
TreadgillJ. A. (1979) The relationship of field-independent/dependent cognitive style and two methods of instruction in mathematics learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 219–222.
15.
WitkinH. A.DykR. B.FatersonH. F.GoodenoughD. R.KarpS. A. (1974) Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.
16.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R.CoxP. W. (1977) Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.
17.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A. (1971) A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
