Individual Differences: How Field Dependence-Independence Affects Learners BY TERRY MUSSER TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE REVIEW................................................................................5 A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE.........................................8 Research on Field Dependence-Independence and its Affect on Learning..........................9 Implications of Field Dependence-Independence for Education..................................12 Other Implications for Field Dependence-Independence.........................................15 WHAT AFFECTS FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE?..................................................17 A DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT.................................................19 CONCLUSION...................................................................................22 Recommendations..............................................................................24
Fifty years ago, Witkin (1948) discovered that individual differences in the effects of visual cues are not merely errors of method, but that people show remarkable consistency in degree of field dependence on tests of orientation perception (Goodenough, 1986). After fiddling with a perception test using rods and frames, Witkin finally developed the Embedded Figures Test to determine the degree of field dependence or independence we each possess. No other cognitive style has been more researched in our history than that of field dependence-independence. In an effort to discover the importance of this cognitive style and its implications for education and research, this paper begins with a general discussion of cognitive styles, including taxonomies and definitions. A review of the article "Assessment Approaches and Cognitive Styles" (Lu & Suen, 1995) follows as well as a look at specific characteristics of field dependence-independence. The next two sections of this paper examine what effects field dependence-independence has on people and what factors effect field dependence-independence. Finally, the final section reviews assessment techniques and how they relate to cognitive style.
A General Discussion of Cognitive Styles
There are many different cognitive styles with the possibility of even more being identified through research and theory. According to Witkin (1973):
In the earliest view, when observations of these styles were limited to the cognitive domain, cognitive styles were conceived as the self-consistent modes of functioning an individual shows throughout his perceptual and intellectual activities. Today, we know that cognitive styles are, in fact, manifestations, in the cognitive domain, of still broader dimensions of functioning, which cut across other psychological domains, including personality and social behavior.
Put more simply, cognitive styles are actually broad personal styles which show typical ways in which we process information. Some examples of cognitive styles that have been identified include: reflectiveness versus impulsiveness (the tendency to react to situations slowly, after examining several alternative responses, or rapidly with the first response that comes to mind); cognitive complexity versus simplicity (the tendency to view the world along many or few parameters; and tolerance for unrealistic experiences (the degree of comfort with experiences that are out of the ordinary). (Bertini, 1986) According to Cognitive Control Theory, (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) field dependence- independence is not a cognitive style but a cognitive control. Cognitive controls are the psychoanalytic entities that regulate perception. Cognitive styles define learner traits, whereas cognitive controls "have the status of intervening variables that define principles by which motoric behavior, perception, memory and other basic quantitative forms of cognitive functioning are organized as an individual coordinates himself with his environment" (Santostefano, 1978, p. 100). Cognitive controls, therefore, define a level of individual differences that falls between mental abilities and cognitive styles. Mental abilities refer to the content and level of cognitive activity, whereas styles refer to the manner and form of learning. Abilities specify the competencies, the mental operations, and the kind of information being processed, while styles are stated in terms of propensities. Abilities are unipolar measures (less ability vs. more ability), whereas styles are bipolar (visual vs. verbal); and abilities are value directional (that is more is better than having less), while styles are value differentiated (neither pole is necessarily better). Another major difference is that abilities are affected by the content domain or the nature of the task, while styles are generalizable tendencies regardless of content. Finally, abilities enable learners to perform tasks and styles control the way in which the task is performed. (see Table 1.) Table 1. Jonassen's Classification of Cognitive Constructs Category Types Examples Second-order mental abilities Cattell's Crystalized/Fluid Intelligence Mental Abilities Primary mental abilities Thurstone, Guilford's Structure of Intellect Field Dependence/Independence Cognitive Flexibility Constricted vs. Flexible Control Impulsivity/Reflectivity Cognitive Tempo Cognitive Controls Focal Attention Scanning vs. Focusing Category Width Breadth of Categorizing Complexity/Simplicity Automatization Strong vs. Weak Automatization Cognitive Styles Information Gathering Visual/Haptic Visualizer/Verbalizer Leveling/Sharpening Information Organizing Serialist/Holist Conceptual Style (Analytical/Relational) Hill's Cognitive Style Mapping Kolb's Learning Styles Learning Styles Dunn & Dunn Learning Styles Grasha-Reichman Learning Styles Gregoric Learning Styles Personality Types Attentional and Engagement Styles Anxiety Tolerance for Unrealistic Experiences Ambiguity Tolerance Frustration Tolerance Expectancy and Incentive Styles Locus of Control Extroversion vs. Introversion Achievement Motivation Risk Taking vs. Cautiousness Domain Knowledge Prior Knowledge Achievement Structural Knowledge Cognitive controls, however, have characteristics of both abilities and styles. They are like styles in that they are concerned with the manner and form of learning, they refer to propensities and are stated in terms of typical behavior. They also reflect information-processing techniques and are seen as controlling rather than enabling. They are like abilities in that they are unipolar and are not value neutral. Controls are also like abilties in that they are affected by content domains and tasks. Witkin's theory of differentiation, developed later in his research (Witkin, et. al., 1979), also recognized field dependence-independence as part of a hierarchical construct placement. This theory was based on the knowledge that differences between field dependent and field independent people reflect the higher-order construct of self-nonself segregation, which in turn is a particular aspect of the still higher construct of psychological differentiation. A more differentiated person shows more self-nonself segregation. As part of a more segregated self are a more articulated body concept and a greater sense of personal identity. Overall, the more segregated the self, the more likely a person is to be field independent, having greater cognitive restructuring skills though fewer interpersonal competencies. Regardless of the semantics for this phenomenon, cognitive controls, styles and abilities help us understand individual differences in human cognition and behavior.
Article Review
Lu, C., & Suen, H. (1995). Assessment approaches and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, pp. 1 - 17. This research addresses the issues surrounding the fair and equitable assessment of students considering their individual differences, namely, field dependence versus field independence. It has become more popular in current educational institutions to assess students on their higher-order thinking within a specific context. This type of achievement measurement is known as alternative or performance-based assessment. It contrasts the historically typical format of using multiple-choice, fact-based instruments. A discussion later in this paper examines the literature on performance-based assessment. Because studies have shown that field independent students perform better on unstructured tasks than do field dependent learners, it was hypothesized that the field independent student would perform better on performance-based assessments which tend to be more ill-structured than multiple-choice tests. It was also hypothesized that there would be no difference in performance between field independent students and field dependent students on multiple-choice tests because these instruments tend to be very structured. 102 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory educational psychology class were recruited for this study. Students were given six take-home assignments, considered to be performance-based, and four multiple-choice tests. The relationship between the first two take-home activities, the multiple-choice tests, and the cognitive styles of the participants was analyzed. The cognitive styles of the students were measured using the Group Embedded Figure Test. A substantial interaction between cognitive style and assessment approach was found in this study. Field-independent students scored substantially higher on performance-based assessment than did field-dependent students, whereas no such difference was found on the multiple-choice test. Other potential variables such as task difficulty, writing ability and scoring metric and equating procedure were ruled out. The authors offered several examples of performance-based assessment answers to illustrate the differences between field independent and field dependent participants. For the intelligence-testing project, though field independent students tended to focus on gathering evidence to infer about intelligence, field dependent students tended to report their subjects' reaction to the testing situation and did not focus on the task of gathering evidence. In their project reports, field dependent subjects focused on peripheral but socially relevant information such as "She was very nervous and cautious when she was scanning the number," and "She is my good friend so I know she is not good at verbal memory." Field independent students were able to identify the relevant information in a problem in order to formulate a solution, whereas field dependent students identified more perfunctory information that dealt more with social issues. There is some discussion about the purpose for using performance-based assessment (PBA) and whether or not it is appropriate. When implementing PBA to determine field dependent versus field independent styles, PBA can be quite useful. If, however, PBA is used across the board to determine achievement, its use is problematic. The final paragraph of this article offers a caution to readers about the generalizability of these results. Although these results reflected on these particular students taking specific tests on specific domains, it is unknown whether or not the same results would be found in different domains or with different instruments. Critique: The methods for conducting the research in this article seem to be very sound. The hypotheses were developed based on previous research on individual differences. There is little other literature that discusses the relationships between cognitive style and performance on various types of tests of achievement or knowledge. This article contributes to a better understanding of the effects of field dependence-independence on education and cognition. The methods used were sound and thorough, eliminating possible contributing variables. The results give us practical information that can be put to use in the classroom. There is one concern to be raised concerning this research. According to the literature (see below) on performance-based assessment, the appropriate amount of assistance should be given to each student to successfully achieve the task. Performance-based does not mean "do it alone on your own time." It is unclear if this research included an adequate amount of assistance for all students or if the rubrics for completing the tasks were valid and appropriate.
A General Discussion of Field Dependence-Independence
Before delving into a discussion of how field dependence-independence affects our lives, it is important to take a general look at this cognitive control or style to gain a better understanding. Field dependence-independence describes the extent to which: The surrounding framework dominates the perception of items within it, The surrounding organized field influences a person's perception of items within it, A person perceives part of the field as a discrete form, The organization of the prevailing field determines the perception of its components, or A person perceives analytically. (Jonassen & Grabowski, p. 86) When field dependents interact with stimuli, they find it difficult to locate the information they are seeking because other information masks what they are looking for. Field independents find it easier to recognize and select the important information from its surrounding field. When information is presented in an ambiguous, unstructured format, the field independent will impose his/her own structure on the information. The field dependent will attempt to understand and learn that information as it is presented and without restructuring it. Another way to look at field dependence and independence is through a global versus articulated cognitive style. Those with a global perspective, field dependents, see things in the entire perceptual field (the forest rather than the trees). In other words, field dependents have difficulty separating the part from the complex organization of the whole. The analytic style presented by field independents allows them to create their own models for things they want to understand or articulate to others. Witkin combined the various dimensions of social and intellectual behavior into a Theory of Psychological Differentiation (Witkin,, 1962) which includes four dimensions: global-articulate, articulation of body concept, sense of identity, and defense structures. The most important aspect of Witkin's Theory is his belief that these are stable traits that predict cognitive and social functioning across environments.
Research on Field Dependence-Independence and its Affect on Learning
Implications for learning come from Witkin's third dimension which separates self from nonself. These two dimensions most often describe the social and intellectual characteristics that impact on learning and instruction. (Witkin & Goodenough, 1976). Field dependents rely on external referents for psychological functioning while field independents rely on themselves as primary referents. In accordance with that principle, the second principle then is that field independents are capable of imposing their own cognitive structure on situations whereas field dependents must be provided with an external structure. With the framework provided by Witkin in mind, a number of studies have provided new insights into the relevance of field dependence-independence on how students learn social material, the use of mediators in learning, the effects of reinforcement, cue salience, how teachers teach, how teachers and students interact, career differentiation, educational-vocational interests, educational-vocational choices and achievement, and so on. The following synopsis captures the most important research results that have implications for education: Goodenough (1976) concluded that field dependents are dominated by salient cues in concept-learning tasks, use a "spectator" approach to learning, are more affected by negative reinforcement, and are better at incidental learning of social information. Field independence predicted higher proficiency in learning Spanish, especially for field independent females. (Hansen, 1980) Passing students were more field independent, whereas failing students and students who dropped out of nursing courses were more field dependent (Goodfellow, 1980). Field dependents had more difficulty in abstracting relevant information from instruction supporting more difficult learning tasks (Canelos, Taylor, & Gates, 1980). Across grades, field independence was correlated with higher mathematics achievement, especially for concepts and application (Vaidya & Chansky, 1980). Field independents scored better on music reading tasks than field dependents (King, 1983). Field independents recalled significantly more from mathematical/scientific passages whereas field dependents recalled more from socially oriented passages (Phifer, 1983). Field independents recalled more structural and functional information (equipment parts) than field dependents (Skaggs, Rocklin, Dansereau, & Hall, 1990). Field independents achieved more on performance-based assessments than did field dependents (Lu & Suen, 1995). James (1973) reported that the most field independent teachers gave field independent students higher grades than field dependent students and the most field dependent teachers assigned the highest grades to the field dependent students. Field-dependent children learned mathematics better from a field dependent instructor than from a field independent teacher (Packer & Bain, 1978). Field independents learned the most in math lessons when given minimum guidance and maximum opportunity for discovery, whereas field dependents profited most from maximum guidance (Adams & McLeod, 1979; McLeod, 1978). Field dependent students taught by field independent teachers achieved more than field dependent students taught by field dependent teachers (Jolly, 1980). All students learned more from field independent teachers. Field independents learned more from an individualized, self-paced course than field dependents (Wilborn, 1981). Field dependents achieved higher scores on a nutrition test after using highly structured materials (presented in a logical order using a deductive sequence requiring written answers to convergent questions), whereas field independents achieved more from the low-structured treatment materials (Tannenbaum, 1982). When collaborative pairs of learners consisted of two field independents, they performed much better than two field dependents (Frank & Davis, 1982). One of each produced intermediate results. Field independents were more efficient at taking notes in outline format than field dependents, which improves their performance over field dependents (Frank, 1984). Frank found that some combination of teacher-supplied organizational structure and training in note taking will maximize the learning for field dependents. Rickards, et. al., (1997) found that field dependents were able to elicit a powerful structure strategy for recall when allowed to take notes while reading a passage. Text passages with headings improved scores for field dependent students, whereas field independents scored better in passages without headings (Thompson, 1987).
Implications of Field Dependence-Independence for Education
Because of mixed findings concerning the affects of field dependence-independence on assessment and the differences in achievement when the teacher's cognitive style is considered, more research on the implications for cognitive style in education must be done. Is it better to match instruction to the individual's cognitive style, or force the student to "stretch" and adapt to a different style of learning? Is it better to group students with similar cognitive styles with instructors of the same style or to mix them? Even Witkin himself was concerned about locking people into instruction compatible with their cognitive styles. He spoke about the possibility of producing change, flexibility, and mobility in cognitive styles by means of appropriate training procedures. For example, field dependent people, who are likely to avoid mathematics, perhaps should be taught mathematics by different methods and approaches adapted to their cognitive style and by teachers whose teaching methods and cognitive styles are congenial to field dependent students. (Bertini, 1986) Based on the extensive research conducted on field dependence-independence, it is possible to conclude that field dependent learners are more likely to excel at learning tasks such as: Group-oriented and collaborative work situations where individuals need to be sensitive to social cues from others Situations where participants must follow a standardized pattern of performance Tests requiring learners to recall information in the form or structure that it was presented Knowledge domains that focus on social issues Furthermore, field dependents should be able to use the following learning strategies effectively: Concentration on information Repetition or rehearsal of information to be recalled Based on this same evidence, one can deduce that field independent learners will excel at learning tasks such as: Problem solving, especially mathematics Situations in which learners must figure out the underlying organization of ideas in the domain, such as concept mapping or outlining Language learning Identifying the salient or important aspects of any body of information, especially when that information is ambiguous or disorganized Transfer tasks where operation must be transferred to novel situations Performance based assessment Furthermore, field independents should be able to use the following learning strategies effectively: Selecting information sources Searching for and validating information Transferring knowledge (predicting, inferring, or evaluating) Generating metaphors and analogies Evaluating knowledge Analyzing information structurally Educational conditions that should maximize learning for field dependents but challenge field independents include: Providing a social learning environment Offering deliberate structural support with cues such as advanced organizers Providing clear, explicit directions and a maximum amount of guidance Including orienting strategies before instruction Providing extensive feedback Presenting outlines or graphic organizers of content Providing examples Embedding questions throughout learning Educational conditions that should maximize learning for field independents but challenge field dependents include: Providing an independent learning environment Utilizing discovery teaching methods Providing large amounts of reference and resource materials to sort through Providing independent, self-instruction Providing minimal guidance and direction Creating outlines, pattern notes, concept maps, etc. The following instructional methods should provide assistance to the field dependent: Well-organized, well-structured materials Pairing the field dependent student with the field independent student or teacher Providing lots of positive and negative feedback Limiting stress Offering structural models for a given field Beginning exercises with clear structure, abundant cues, consistent feedback; scaffolding as the student progresses Asking learners to identify their own goals Providing many examples and nonexamples The following instructional methods should provide assistance to the field independent: Pairing the field independent with a field dependent student or teacher Offering guidance, but not imposing structure Allowing student-directed learning Providing accessibility of supporting resources Providing team building exercises and demonstrating the power of synergy.
Other Implications for Field Dependence-Independence
The research shows that there are areas other than education that are affected by field dependence-independence. Through development of his differentiation theory, Witkin believed that field dependence-independence affected our personalities, with the field dependent having more interpersonal skills than field independents. Affective Skills Field independent people have been found to be less impulsive and direct in their expression of the affective, both as children and adults, in a variety of studies using behavioral observation, projective tests, and experimental tests (Korchin, p. 49). Motor Control In studies of motor inhibition, which require subjects to perform a simple and familiar action as slowly as possible (writing one's name or walking a straight line), field independent people are better able to inhibit and control their behavior. Research has also shown that hyperactive children are characteristically field dependent. Neurological Implications Field independents have also been shown to have more control over their personal defenses. The field independent favors isolation, intellectualization, and projection; whereas the field dependent is more likely to use denial and repression. Similarly, people who tend to forget their dreams, especially if they are stressful dreams, are more commonly found to be field dependent. In clinical psychology settings, patients with depression were found to be more field dependent and patients who were paranoid were found to be more field independent. People with tendencies to form dependencies such as alcohol, obesity, and drug addiction are generally field dependent, whereas patients with obsessive-compulsive characteristics, paranoia, and schizophrenia tend to be field independent (Korchin, p. 51). Social Implications Most of the effects of the link between field dependence-independence and interpersonal behavior can be understood as within the differing styles of information seeking. When information seeking is not an issue, or when the information that is available is unambiguous, no differences exist between field dependence and field independence in people (Oltman, 1986). In general, when field dependent people need information, they tend to look to other people while field independent people look within themselves. In a study of differences in responsiveness to other people, subjects were paired in a laboratory according to field dependence-independence: both members field independent, both members field dependent, or one field independent with one field dependent (Oltman, Goodenough, Witkin, Freedman, & Friedman, 1975). In face-to-face dialogues, the pairs discussed issues about which they initially disagreed, and they were asked to resolve their disagreements. Results indicated that the presence of field independent members in the dyads reduced the frequency of conflict resolutions. Dyads reached the most agreements when both partners were field dependent, an intermediate number when one partner was field dependent and one field independent, and the least agreement when both partners were field independent. In studies where participants were asked to do difficult problem solving, field dependent participants tended to look more at the experimenter than did field independents. It has also been found that field dependent people prefer to be physically closer to those with whom they are interacting. Along these same lines of inquiry (social information), field dependent people show better incidental recall for the faces of others with whom they have interacted and tend to recall social aspects of situations more than the nonsocial aspects. Field dependents are more likely to be self- disclosing, to know more people and be known by more, and to prefer team to individual sports.
What Affects Field Dependence-Independence?
Thus far the discussion has focused on things that are effected by field dependence- independence. There are a few factors, however, that effect the degree to which we are each field dependent or independent. Child Rearing Practices Witkin believed that field dependence-independence tendencies result from child rearing practices that emphasize gaining independence from parental controls (Korchin, 1986). The early studies of child rearing done by Witkin showed that when there is strong emphasis on obedience to parental authority and external control of impulses, the child will likely become relatively field dependent. When there is encouragement within the family for the child to develop separate, autonomous functioning, the child will become relatively field independent. Socioeconomic Status There is some evidence that socioeconomic status may effect field dependence-independence. In a study conducted by a group of researchers at the University of Barcelona (Forns-Santacana, Amador-Campos, & Roig-Lopez, 1993), the authors found significant differences in the scores relating to the field dependence-independence variable, as measured by the Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT), among subjects of different socioeconomic classes. Skills of perceptual reconstruction that are necessary to solve the disembedding task of the CEFT appear less well developed in the case of subjects of low socioeconomic class. Sex There is mixed evidence for the effect of sex on field dependence-independence. Studies of children have not found any differences at all. However, in studies of adults when differences between sexes and field dependence-independence are found, males always achieve scores that are indicative of greater field independence. The effect of sex on field dependence-independence is so small that this factor is practically insignificant. Age There appears to be some effect of age on field dependence-independence. Children are generally field dependent, but their field independence increases as they become adults. Adults (especially adult learners) are more field independent (Gurley, 1984). After that time, field independence gradually decreases throughout the remainder of life, with older people tending to be more field dependent than their younger cohorts (Witkin et. al., 1971). Hemispheric Lateralization There may be evidence that there are neurophysiological differences in the brain based on field dependence-independence. Silverman, Adevai and McGough (1966) showed that a group of left- handed subjects were more field dependent that a group of right-handed subjects. Pizzamiglio (1974) also found that ambidextrous subjects were more field dependent that right-handed subjects. Because the right and left hemispheres of the brain function independently, these studies predict that there are actual differences in the hemispheric lateralization between field dependent and independent people.
A Discussion of Performance-Based Assessment
In light of the article that forms the central focus of this paper, it is necessary to include a general discussion of performance-based assessment. Performance assessment, also known as alternative or authentic assessment, is a form of testing that requires students to perform a task rather than select an answer from a ready-made list. For example, a student may be asked to explain historical events, generate specific hypotheses, solve math problems, converse in a foreign language, or conduct research on an assigned topic. Experienced raters, either teachers or other trained staff, then judge the quality of the student's work based on an agreed-upon set of criteria called rubrics. This new form of assessment is most widely used to directly assess writing ability based on text produced by students under test instructions. The following examples are methods that have been used to successfully assess performance: Open-ended or extended response exercises are questions or other prompts that require students to explore a topic orally or in writing. Students might be asked to describe their observations from a science experiment, or present arguments on historic characters. Extended tasks are assignments that require sustained attention in a single work area and are carried out over several hours or longer. Such tasks could include drafting, reviewing, and revising a poem; conducting and explaining the results of a science experiment on photosynthesis; or even painting a car in auto shop. This assignment to write a research paper on a selected educational psychology topic could be considered an extended task under the performance-based assessment umbrella. The grading policy could be considered a type of rubric. Portfolios are selected collections of a variety of performance-based work. A portfolio might include a student's "best pieces" and the student's evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of several pieces. The portfolio may also contain some "works in progress" that illustrate the improvements the student has made over time. Because they require students to actively demonstrate what they know, performance assessments may be a more valid indicator of students' knowledge and abilities. There is a big difference between answering multiple choice questions on how to make an oral presentation and actually making an oral presentation. More important, performance assessment can provide impetus for improving instruction, and increase students' understanding of what they need to know and be able to do. In preparing their students to work on a performance assessment task, teachers describe what the task entails and the standards that will be used to evaluate performance. This requires a careful description of the elements of good performance, and allows students to judge their own work as they proceed. Performance assessments are criterion-referenced. Wiggins (1992) proposes eight basic criteria to be used for developing the assessment. 1. The tasks should be meaningful and worth testing. Typical classroom tests tend to assess knowledge and content. The higher-order thinking skills, problem-solving, or the process involved in obtaining an answer are less frequently considered. 2. The set of tasks should be a valid sample that gives insight into students' overall performance. For example, a writing assignment occurring over three or four days, with revisions being completed and each draft being graded is preferable to completing the task in one session. 3. The scoring criteria should be authentic, allotting or withholding points for essential successes and errors. Students should be provided with the criteria and models of excellent performance as part of instruction. 4. The standards for anchoring the scoring should be credible and appropriate. Scoring rubrics should represent generalizations about the traits found in a group of standards of performance for individual tasks. 5. The context of the problems should be realistic with the constraints on time and resources minimized. The context is realistic if it supports a variety of solutions and styles and requires good judgement to put it all together. 6. The tasks should be validated. It is important that all students receive standard instructions during administration, and that the amount of assistance provided, and the responses given to student questions is an acceptable level. 7. The scoring should be reliable and feasible. Pilot some or all of the tests. 8. The results should be reported and used so that all customers for the data are satisfied. Make sure that the reports reflect achievement in reference to the outcomes and include what the student can do and to what level of performance. Because of the relative newness of performance assessment and the potential difficulties associated with changing from a curriculum-based assessment model, it may be more realistic for teachers to begin blending the two methods. By combining the use of curriculum-based assessment and performance assessment, teachers may enhance the richness of the date available for instructional decision-making (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1993). They can broaden their assessment focus to include skill acquisition as well as skills application and integration within rich, authentic contexts and can increase their range of instructional options.
Although it appears that field dependence-independence is a field rich in research and writing, it is an area that will never be exhausted of new topics to explore. Field dependence- independence has implications for many practitioners and researchers, however, the conclusions for the implications for education are most interesting to me. It appears that the knowledge of individual and group differences based on field dependence-independence is cemented in the realm of research and hasn't quite been exploited in the practical world. Teachers and teacher educators do not appear to be testing students for field dependence-independence, and yet it is so critical to what goes on in the classroom. The students behavior, ability to organize information, need for assistance and guidance, performance on certain types of tests, and ability to comprehend assignments are all effected by field dependence-independence. The fact that the teacher's cognitive tendency towards field dependence or independence effects how much the students will learn should encourage educators to take this phenomenon more seriously. One concern not addressed in the literature relates to the newer teaching methods and techniques that are being described in literature and research and taught to pre-service teachers and their effect on students who are field dependent. The Lu & Suen article showed that field dependent students do not perform as well on performance-based assessments. Other research showed that field dependents need a lot of structure and assistance which is not part of the discovery or inquiry model of learning currently becoming popular. As often as Witkin indicated that one style is not "better" than another, one can't help but notice how much the field independent student is favored in education in this body of research. I found myself comparing my own preferences and styles to those identified in the research and wondering if I had the "good" qualities or the "bad". Although the social functioning of field dependents was superior to field independents, how important is social functioning compared to academic functioning in our society? Based on this research, one might conclude that our culture favors field independents in terms of job status, pay, education achieved, etc. There were some hints that field independence can be increased with further education, but that simply perpetuates the inequality that already exists. It was also implied in the reading that individuals may either be both field dependent and independent, and at least neither very strong field dependent or independent, but no research in this area was found.
The study of field dependence-independence began fifty years ago and continues today. When this cognitive style was first defined, the education system in the United States was well established and somewhat stable. In other words, tried and true methods of instruction were in place that could be examined in research and practice. Today's educational system is beginning to shift toward more authentic, context-laden paradigms in which the learner is an active participant. Students today are being asked what they want to learn and encouraged to set their own goals for educational attainment. There is less structure in the classroom imposed by the teacher and the educational system and students are required to develop their own structures. Although, in theory, these new instructional methods appear to add value to what the student is learning because the student is free to develop his/her own meaning, these methods may put students who are unable to function well with less structure at a disadvantage: namely the field dependent student. The following recommendations are offered for addressing some of these concerns in the future: Researchers must now examine the affects of field dependence-independence on the student's ability to achieve and perform with less structure in the classroom. Students in non-traditional classrooms, such as charter schools and alternative programs, should be studied to determine if field dependent students are at a disadvantage. Teacher educators, when introducing pre-service teachers to new ways of teaching and assessing students, must caution them about providing assistance and external structures for those students who are unable to function within these arenas. There is also the possibility that methods could be developed that would teach field dependent people to be better able to develop structures and support in ill-structured learning situations. Research should be expanded to include a look at field dependence-independence over the life span. If one could discover how adults become more field independent, especially those who further their education, it might be possible to apply that information to helping field dependent children act more field independent in appropriate settings.
Adams, V.M., & McLeod, D.B. (1979). The interaction of field independence with discovery learning in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 32 - 35. Bertini, M. (1986). Some Implications of Field Dependence for Education. In Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application. (Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L. & Wapner, S., Eds.) Canelos, J., Taylor, W.D., & Gates, R.B. (1980). The effects of three levels of visual stimulus complexity on the information processing of field-dependents and field-independents when acquiring information for performance on three types of instructional objectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 7, 65 - 70. Dyke, R.B., & Witkin, H.A. (1962). Family experiences related to the development of differentiation in children. Child Development, 30, 21 - 55. Forns-Santacana, M., Amador-Campos, J.A., & Roig-Lopez, F. (1993). Differences in Jfield dependence-independence cognitive style as a function of socioeconomic status, sex, and cognitive competence. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 176 - 186. Frank, B.M., & Davis, J.K. (1982). Effect of field-independence match or mismatch on a communication task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 23 - 31. Frank, B.M. (1984). Effect of field independence-dependence and study technique on learning from lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669 - 678. Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining Performance Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement to Strengthen Instructional Planning. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, (3), p. 183 - 192. Goodenough, D.R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 675 - 694. Goodenough, D.R., Oltman, P.K., Friedman, F., Moore, C.A., Witkin, H.A., Owens, D., & Raskin, E. (1979). Cognitive styles in the development of medical careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 341 - 351. Goodenough, D.R. (1986). History of the field dependence construct. In Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application. (Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L. & Wapner, S., Eds.) Goodfellow, D.H. (1980). Relationships between field independence-dependence and student and faculty performance in a baccalaureate nursing program (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3951. Gurley, M.P. (1984). Characteristics of motivation, field independence, personality type, learning style, and teaching preference of the adult learner as compared with traditional-age college students (Doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of America), Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1268. Hansen, J. (1980). Field dependent-independent cognitive styles and foreign language prficiency among college students in an introductory Spanish course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado), Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3460. James, C.D.R. (1973). A cognitive style approach to teacher-pupil interaction and the academic performance of black children. Unpublished master's thesis, Rutgers University. Jolly, P.J.E. (1980). Student achievement in biology in terms of cognitive styles of students and teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 416. Jonassen, D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Cognitive Controls. Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, England. Jonassen, D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Field Dependence and Field Independence (Global vs. Articulated Style). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, England. King, D.W. (1983). Field-dependence/field-independence and achievement in music reading, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin), Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1320. Korchin, S.J. (1986). Field Dependence, Personality Theory, and Clinical Research. In Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application. (Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L. & Wapner, S., Eds.) Lu, C., & Suen, J. (1995). Assessment approaches and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 1 - 17. Oltman, P.K., Goodenough, D.R., Witkin, H.A., Freedman, N., & Friedman, F. (1975). Psychological differentiation as a factor in conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 730 - 736. Oltman, P.K. (1986). Psychological Differentiation Theory in Social and Cross-Cultural Psychology. In Field Dependence in Psychological Theory, Research, and Application. (Bertini, M., Pizzamiglio, L. & Wapner, S., Eds.) Packer, J., & Bain, J. (1978). Cognitive style and student-teachers compatibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 864 - 871. Phifer, J. (1983). Effects of individual cognitive style and processing differences on metacognitive reading strategies, (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska), Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2420. Pizzamiglio, L. (1974). Handedness, ear-preference and field dependence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 700 - 702. Rickards, J.P., Fajen, B.R., Sullivan, J.F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). "Signaling, Notetaking, and Field Independence-Dependence in Text Comprehension and Recall." Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508 - 517. Santostefano, S. (1978). A Biodevelopmental Approach to Clinical Child Psychology. New York: Wiley. Silverman, A.J., Adevai, G., & McGough, W.E. (1966). Some relationships between handedness and perception. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 10, 151 - 158. Skaggs, L.P., Rocklin, T., Dansereau, D., & Hall, R.H. (1990). Dyadic learning of technical material: Individual differences, social interaction, and recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 47 - 63. Tannenbaum, R.K. (1982). An investigation of the relationship(s) between selected instructional techniques and identified field dependent and field independent cognitive styles as evidenced among high school students enrolled in studies of nutrition (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 68. Thompson, G., & Knox, A.B. (1987). Designing for diversity: Are field dependent learners less suited to distance education programs of instruction? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 17 - 29. Vaidya, S., & Chansky, N.M. (1980). Cognitive development and cognitive style as factors in mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 326 - 330. Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 49, (8), p. 26 - 33. Wilborn, M.R. (1981). An investigation of the relationships among proportional reasoning, field-dependence/independence, sex, and grades in science of eigth grade ISCS students (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 92. Witkin, H.A. (1948). "The effect of training and of structural aids on performance in three tests of space orientation." (Report No. 80). Washington, D.C.: Civil Aeronautics Administration, Division of Research. Witkin, H.A. (1973). "The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations." Paper presented at a symposium on "Cognitive Styles, Creativity and Higher Education," sponsored by the Graduate Record Examination Board, Montreal, Canada. Princeton, N.J.:Educational Testing Service, Research Bulletin 73 - 11. Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D.R. (1976). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior, (RB 76 - 12). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.