Journal of Vocational Education and Training

ISSN: 1363-6820 (Print) 1747-5090 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20

Cognitive learning style: a review of the field

dependent-field independent approach

Pithers R. T.

To cite this article: Pithers R. T. (2002) Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependent-
field independent approach, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54:1, 117-132, DOI:
10.1080/13636820200200191

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820200200191

Published online: 20 Dec 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17027

View related articles

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjve20
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 54, Number 1, 2002

Cognitive Learning Style: a review of the

field dependent-field independent approach

R.T. PITHERS
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT This article reviews the relevant literature in the area of

cognitive style as it impacts on individual, vocational and organisational
learning. The focus is applied to one specific, well-documented dimension of
cognitive style, which has been researched and written about for almost 30
years. This is the domain of field dependence-field independence: a concept
that relates to the relatively persuasive way individual learners acquire,
structure and process information. It concerns how people perceive, think,
solve problems and learn. This approach to cognitive style or so it has been
claimed, has implications for the effectiveness of individual and
organisational learning. Consequently, the available literature in this area
was examined to review the development of current thinking about this
concept, as well as to describe and critically evaluate the implications of the
outcomes of theory and research in this area for vocational education and
training.

Background
One issue that has continued to be explored in the educational,
psychological and organisational research literature for almost 30 years
is the concept of cognitive learning style. Cognitive style is said to be the
relatively stable strategies, preferences and attitudes that determine an
individual’s ‘… typical modes of perceiving, remembering and problem
solving’ (Messick, 1976, p. 5). They are thought of as the modes by which
learners approach, acquire and process information, as well as including
the consistent ways in which an individual memorises and retrieves
information (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Messick (1996) has gone
further to show how cognitive learning style goes beyond learning to
involve an individual’s psychological and social functioning.
The concept is different from cognitive ‘abilities’, which are usually
considered to be more domain specific. Cognitive learning styles,

117
R.T. Pithers

however, are thought to be relatively stable ways in which a learner

approaches a learning task across a range of different domains (Sternberg
& Grigorenko, 1997; Kahtz & Kling, 1999). Abilities are rather about
subject-content mastery and the individual’s performance capacity in a
specific subject-matter domain. Nevertheless, even this distinction has
been doubted by some other workers (e.g. McKenna, 1990) who see
certain aspects of cognitive style (such as field-dependence) as a non-
verbal measure of fluid intelligence and spatial visualisation.
Learning strategies, on the other hand, involve conscious choices
about how a learner aims to handle how they will behave in a certain
learning situation (Messick, 1976). Obviously, learning strategies can be
affected by cognitive style, but although strategies may be adapted to be
more appropriate to a particular learning situation, the underlying
cognitive style may be much more permanent and persuasive. Therefore,
depending on its strength, it may influence the choice of the learning
strategies that the learner tends to adopt over a range of learning tasks.
One major approach to the classification of cognitive style has been
concerned with the cognitive processes of perception, memory and
thought. This is an approach that examines a substructure of cognitive
style, on the one hand, involving a global and holistic or on the other, an
intuitive and analytical dimension of the concept (Allison & Hayes, 1996).
The predominant approach to this subset of cognitive style has been the
construct of ‘field dependence-field independence’. These are two
constructs basically, which entail the way individuals attend to, recognise
and structure perceptual patterns. They reflect the way pattern
recognition is processed and retained in memory.
The whole approach involves an individual’s ability to perform
perceptual analytic type tasks (Riding & Cheema, 1991) and it is derived
from the substantive work of Witkin et al (1971). These workers
developed and trialled a series of standardised psychological tests, the
most well used and substantiated of which is the Group Embedded Figures
Test (GEFT). This instrument measures a construct that they called ‘field
dependence’, which appeared to be based on what they termed
‘psychological differentiation’. Basically, this perceptual, pattern-
recognition test purports to measure an individual’s ability to ‘break up’
an organised visual field so that an embedded part or given shape in that
field may be recognised and memorised as separate from the given field;
thus, it is ‘differentiated’ from the field. This process, over a range of
given visual fields, enables the measurement of the bipolar construct field
dependence-field independence.
In a field dependent mode, an individual’s pattern recognition is
strongly dominated by the holistic organisation of the total perceptual
field with its parts being perceived as ‘fused’. In contrast, in the field
independent mode of perceiving, the individual is more likely to see the
parts of the field as distinct from the organised ground (Witkin et al, 1971,

118
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

p. 4). These workers went on to argue, based on their research evidence,

that the individual who performs in a relatively field-dependent way tends
to follow the presented visual field structure. On the other hand, the field-
independent individual tends to be able to break up a given field’s
organisational structure and locate a nominated structural part.
Witkin et al (1971) discovered that field independent (FID)
individuals, when compared to field dependent (FD) ones, were more
capable of restructuring the perceptual field or imposing a structure if
one is missing. They also tended to act more autonomously than FDs, and
have a more social and interpersonal orientation; dimensions of the
construct, which appeared to be relatively stable and persuasive (e.g.
Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Nonetheless, Witkin et al (1971) were at
pains to point out that being strongly FD or FID was neither ‘good’ nor
‘bad’, and that scores on the GEFT formed a normal distribution. Since
that time, the validity, reliability and usage of the GEFT has been
evaluated by a range of researchers with the general conclusion emerging
that this instrument appears to have ‘desirable measurement
characteristics’ (e.g. Thompson & Melancon, 1987) and that it provides
reliable and valid data (Melancon & Thompson, 1989).
Much is made of the use of the GEFT in the present article because it
underpins most of the research effort and reported outcomes in the
FD/FID dimension of cognitive learning style, since the early 1970s. For
example, in the 1990s, this approach appears to have had a resurgence in
the business and organisational behaviour literature, where researchers
have used it regularly as a basis for studying decision making,
information processing, strategy development and group processes in
learning (e.g. Hayes & Allison, 1998; Leonard et al, 1999). Nevertheless,
the focus of this article will be on the findings and implications of
research on FD-FID, predominantly using the GEFT, in the area of
vocational teaching/training and learning.

Findings: individual functioning

Witkin et al (1971) summarised numerous studies completed up until the
time of his paper and using a precursor to the GEFT. This evidence
indicated that:
there was a relationship between the strength of FID and problem
solving performance, where the solution depends on the individual
using a critical element in a different context from the one in which the
element had originally been presented; thus showing a connection
between analytical and structuring abilities;
FD individuals pay more attention to and remember faces;

119
R.T. Pithers

FD individuals are more strongly influenced by the immediate social

context and are more inclined to attend to and learn about social
aspects of their environment;
FD individuals show greater incidental learning for social material than
do FIDs;
with the use of the GEFT, a large number of liberal arts students
showed a small, but significant sex difference with men, on average,
being more FID.

FD-FID Sex and Grade Differences

Many subsequent studies have found no significant GEFT, FD-FID sex
difference, in which men, on average, scored higher on FID. These more
recent studies used samples of accountants (McRae & Young, 1988),
business students (e.g. DeSanctis & Dunikoski, 1983; Kelleher, 1997;
Murphy & Casey, 1997), as well as a sample of education students
(Wieseman et al, 1992). There is not much other research that has
indicated any consistent sex difference in FD-FID mean scores, especially
in areas outside of the liberal arts, such as science, engineering, business
studies or for that matter, education (Wieseman et al, 1992).
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that these workers found that
education students who received lower grades in an education course
tended to be more field dependent (Wieseman et al, 1992). This finding
has been replicated, at least in part, by other researchers in areas such as
art and design (Fergusson, 1993) and in nursing courses (O’Brien &
Wilkinson, 1992). Tinajero & Paramo, (1997) used the GEFT in a study of
over 400 high-school students, and found that both FID boys and girls
performed better than FD ones in all subjects. They concluded that field
dependence-field independence is related to overall academic
achievement. Generally, however, research work relating academic
achievement (e.g. grades) to strength of field independence is sparse,
although a recent study has continued to indicate that it may be a salient
variable at least with some groups of business students (Murphy &
Doucette, 1997).

Findings: suggested differences between

field dependent and field independent teachers
The following summary outlines the suggested main differences between
FD and FID individuals found to date. Reviews and research completed by
Brodzinski (1982), Saracho (1991) and Saracho & Spodek (1981) have
indicated that teachers who score higher on FD as compared to teachers
who scored higher on FID, tend to exhibit the following attitudes and
behaviour:

120
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

rely on the whole perceptual field;

look to the global context and tend to conform to the total field;
search for information from facial cues;
are more strongly interested in people;
have a greater sensitivity to others with higher developed social skills;
are more dependent on authority;
tend to prefer situations that require direct communication with
others.
In comparison, FID teachers tend to:
perceive objects as separate from their fields;
more easily abstract an item from the field, and solve new problems
presented and organised in different contexts;
be less dependent on authority, and depend more on their own values
and standards;
be orientated towards ‘active striving’;
appear more distant and aloof;
be more socially detached, but have deeper analytical skills;
prefer occupations where they can work alone.
Furthermore, Witkin & Goodenough (1981) have claimed that FID
individuals rely more on an internal frame of reference and that they
provide structure for stimulus complexes in which a certain shape may
be perceived to be ambiguous. They were reported to be more likely to
break up the visual field into its elements and often provide a different
orientation to a field than the one suggested by its elements.

Change in and the Development of FD or FID

Whether an individual can learn to become more FD or more FID has
become a greater field of contention since the 1980s. Originally, Witkin et
al (1971) and other researchers of the time, considered that the degree of
field dependence-field independence a person possessed and the amount
of an individual’s psychological differentiation were stable and pervasive,
especially over the growth years (e.g. 10-24), although there was a hint in
their data that a practice effect on FD was possible.
More recently, following this lead, Murphy & Doucette (1997) using
the GEFT, measured the FD/FID of business undergraduates and among
other things, their year of study. They found that these learners became
significantly more field independent and therefore, more analytically
skilled as they progressed through their course of study. The increase in
analytical skill is a desirable practice effect of university study, but is at
odds with Witkin & Goodenough’s (1981) view that learners tend to move
to a more FID state by their mid-teenage years, further learning having
little subsequent effect. Leonard et al (1999) also suggested the

121
R.T. Pithers

possibility that cognitive style may be malleable. This view was based on
their research in organisations into the ability of successful managers to
take on or select or adapt to styles (presumably more field independent
and analytic) needed in these positions.
Another enlightening study in this area, was carried out by Rush &
Moore (1991). They discovered that it was possible to train people to
change the strength of their cognitive style. For example, FDs were taught
the restructuring or analytical skills that FIDs tended to use more
regularly and then to apply these in new problem solving. They improved
their performance on two subsequent dependent measures. Thus, there
appears to be an emerging implication from this research, that cognitive
style in fact may after all be a reasonably flexible construct. Nevertheless,
there is not much supporting research published yet in this area. It
should be noted that even if FD-FID styles remain relatively stable,
behavioural strategies in teaching or at work may be seen to be quite
varied, reflect conscious decisions and be context specific (Steufert &
Nogami, 1989).

Major Findings: students and learners

Many studies in the area of cognitive learning style have examined the
degree of FD-FID in various vocational fields. For example, generally
business students in North America, tend to be ‘moderately’ field
independent (e.g. DeSantis & Dunikoski, 1983; Young et al, 1989; McRae &
Young, 1990; Keller, 1997). Lusk & Wright (1981) reported a study
showing that engineers were, on average, more field independent than
Witkin et al’s liberal arts normative sample. Osipow (1969) examined
vocational preference and scores on FD-FID. Special education students
and nurses tended to be more field dependent, whilst home economics,
dental, pharmacy and fisheries students tended to be more field
independent.
Students of liberal arts were more field dependent than those
involved in mathematics, physics and chemistry as well as graduates of
design and architecture (e.g. Derussey & Futch, 1971). Lusk & Wright
(1981) found that their business student sample were less field
independent than science and engineering students, but more field
independent than arts students. This was a general finding of Witkin et al
(1977b), who found that FID individuals preferred to work more in the
less interpersonal, analytic domains, such as the sciences that, they
argued, required greater use of restructuring skills. Relatively field
dependent individuals were seen to prefer vocational areas such as
education, which require greater use of their interpersonal skills.
This was a finding supported by Wieseman et al (1992), who found
beginning education students to be predominantly field dependent in
their cognitive learning style. A degree of field independence is an

122
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

important consideration in many forms of vocational learning, because

individuals who are more analytic appear to be able to more effectively
use their differentiation and analytical skills in problem solving when the
field is structured. They conceivably are also better able to impose a
structure when the field lacks these components (Witkin & Goodenough,
1981).

Major Findings: teachers.

There appears to be a dearth of published research that examines the
field dependence-field independence characteristics among teachers, let
alone adult or vocational teachers and trainers. There is in comparison, a
voluminous research literature that has used various types of student
samples. Nonetheless, Pithers (2000) has data based on a sample of 170
vocational teachers of various sorts that indicates, on average, that these
teachers (both the men and the women) are ‘moderately’ FID, compared
to the GEFT normative sample. In Pithers’s data, there was no significant
gender effect, nor one for the stage of their course.
For another different sample, Saracho (1989) has shown, at least for
early childhood teachers, that teachers’ cognitive style can affect how
they interact with others and select either a more social or more abstract
curriculum content. Saracho (1991), in another study, obtained data
showing that FID teachers, as well as their students, were more content-
orientated and, furthermore, that the cognitive style orientation of the
teacher (as well as of the students) can come to affect their perception of
their learning experience. For example, FD teachers reported ‘more
satisfaction’ with their students while FD students reported a greater
preference and liking for ‘socially orientated’ teachers.

Teaching or Training Methodology

Witkin et al (1977a) reported evidence that FID teachers preferred to use
more formal teaching methods, whereas FD teachers preferred more
frequent two-way interaction with their students. Riding & Cheema (1991)
have summarised much of the available literature in this area and have
indicated furthermore, that FID teachers tended to use questioning as an
‘instructional tool’, whereas FD teachers used this technique more often
to check on student learning. Teachers who tended to be more FID
tended to emphasise standards and during explanations of subject-matter
content to formulate their own explanatory principles. FDs were more
inclined to involve the students in structuring the content and in
sequencing content in the teaching-learning process. Furthermore, FIDs
tended to correct the learners and to provide explanatory feedback even
if critical. FD teachers were less inclined to provide critical feedback to
their learners. FIDs or so it was found, tended to focus more on subject

123
R.T. Pithers

matter content and its coverage and were less inclined, than FD teachers,
to worry about creating positive student classroom attitudes and
relationships.
Witkin & Goodenough (1981) had little doubt, based on available
research evidence at that time, that the FD-FID cognitive style construct
was associated with learning outcomes. They claimed that FID
individuals, including teachers, relied on a more internal frame of
reference when they were faced with ambiguous material. Subsequently,
they were more likely to impose or provide their own structure; be
analytical with material and be more likely to provide a different
orientation to the visual field or subject matter content than the one
suggested by its elements. These authors claimed that ‘stronger’ FID
individuals were more capable in all of these areas. These observations
made about teachers whose predominant style and behaviour were either
more FD or FID, tended to give more substance and detail to Witkin &
Goodenough’s earlier reports.
Self-awareness of cognitive or information-processing style is not
only an important issue in developing more successful managers of
organisations (Murphy & Doucette, 1997), it is important for developing
successful teachers as educational leaders. For instance, if FD learners
tend to favour more structure and feedback in learning, and FID learners
prefer more autonomy and less interpersonal interaction, then perhaps,
vocational teachers should provide a variety of teaching methodologies
to accommodate the range of FD-FID styles likely to be present in their
classes.
A simpler approach would be to find out the predominant cognitive
style in the student group (i.e. FD or FID) and then match that style with
the attitudes and behaviour of an ‘appropriate’ teaching/training style
(i.e. more FD or FID), examples of which have already been outlined. This
approach, however, is problematic. One major problem is that FD-FID
scores from the GEFT are conceived of as following a normal distribution.
This, in practice, means that in any group there will usually be individual
learners who exhibit FD and FID strength in various degrees. This means
that if a teacher or trainer adopts one predominant cognitive teaching
style to ‘match’ with a similar cognitive learning style (i.e. FD or FID), they
are bound not to ‘connect’ with some of the learners’ cognitive style
preference.
It may be argued that learners whose predominant style is FD, who
are exposed to teachers whose predominant style is FID (in particular, in
areas such as management or marketing), become more FID over the time
of their course. The question, however, of whether learners can modify or
change their predominant cognitive style over a relatively short time
period or whether individuals of different predominant styles (i.e. FD or
FID) are more likely to be drawn to a different occupational area, is still a
point of issue in the sparse research literature on this subject.

124
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

Nevertheless, Murphy & Doucette (1997) do have recent evidence that

business undergraduates did become significantly more field
independent as they moved through their course. They pointed out that
this increase in analytical skill is educationally desirable and would be
expected in a further education course. This evidence certainly has
negative implications for Witkin et al’s (1971) conception of FD-FID as
relatively stable after the mid teenage years. Hayes & Allison (1998),
having examined much of the literature on cognitive style and practice,
have also indicated that there is a good possibility that cognitive style is,
indeed, ‘malleable’ over the long term.
There is, however, another serious problem with matching the
cognitive style of the teacher with that of the learner, at least except in
the short term. This is the notion that in spite of any short-term benefits
in learner-teacher satisfaction level, the approach simply brings about
further practice and positively reinforces those information-processing
attitudes and behaviour with which the learner (perhaps, as well as the
teacher) is already most comfortable. In fact, in recent times, a range of
workers in the field have pointed to the dangers of simply matching the
cognitive style of the teacher with that of the student, other than for
exploiting short-term benefits (Hayes & Allison, 1998; March, 1991;
Sternberg, 1988).
Their viewpoint is that, in the longer term, there are considerable
benefits for the learner in developing a flexible approach to information
processing or cognitive style. That is, when the situation demands it, the
individual is able to adopt or adapt more FD or alternatively, more FID
attitudes, characteristics and teacher leadership behaviour. What
Steufert & Nogami (1989) have written for organisational employees can
be seen to be important for vocational learners and teachers as well. That
is, the employee or the learner may be better off in problem solving at
work, applying a different style or degree of style characteristic than the
one that they were taught during their education and training.
The learner, therefore, needs to be able to learn to differentiate
between different styles, practice a range of them and then, later at work,
apply the most appropriate style or level for the demands of the context
that they find themselves in at a particular time. Of course, this ability is
needed by the vocational teacher or trainer in the first place. A vocational
teacher or trainer who, conceivably, might then be able to practice and
teach using a flexible approach to cognitive information processing.
Nonetheless, the use of such cognitive style flexibility may be easier said
than done if aspects of cognitive style, rather than cognitive strategies,
are less malleable than some recent authors have suggested.
There have been some important studies relevant to the issue of the
malleability of cognitive style in the business field (see Allison & Hayes,
1998, for a review of these studies). Here, effective leadership in managing
people of different information processing styles and of integrating

125
R.T. Pithers

divergent approaches to learning and communication are seen as

important issues; as they are for vocational teachers or trainers whose
role is in providing leadership for managing teaching, learning and
change. Unless integrative leadership is provided, separate sub-groups of
learners with different predominant styles, may emerge and prove
counterproductive to effective communication, learning and change. One
approach, in this case, might involve a vocational teacher increasing the
learners’ awareness of their own cognitive FD-FID style preference and
how this can affect communication. Another approach discerned in the
management and organisational change literature, concerns planning
towards minimising diversity and developing a group composition of
individuals with a similar cognitive style application (say, field
independent) to solve a particular problem. This approach would
certainly minimise conflict.
It is an approach, perhaps, more suited to organisational
development, than it is to vocational education and training where
groups of students tend to come together already composed of
individuals with diverse cognitive styles, though the process may work
for small group learning about quite specific problems. Another danger
with this approach is that the individual learners are not exposed to a
range of styles during training. They, therefore, do not develop a degree
of cognitive style flexibility; rather, they are more likely through further
practice and feedback, to have their own predominant approach
strengthened and this may not be the one later needed to solve the range
of problems they face in the work place. In short, the homogeneous
cognitive style approach to teaching and learning simply tends to
strengthen stereotypic thinking and problem solving. In this case, the
learners tend to continue with their own predominant style or learn the
teacher’s preferred, selective ways of attending to, processing and
interpreting information that becomes self-validating. The learners may
then become defensive to anyone else, including another teacher, who
challenges their attitudes, beliefs and strategies.
In practice, the issue of whether vocational teachers as well as their
students should be aware of the range of cognitive styles (e.g. the FD-FID
dimension), and how they might impact on problem solving or other
learned performance has been addressed only by a few recent workers in
the field. For example, Murphy & Casey (1997) examined field
dependence-field independence as one aspect of cognitive style with a
group of information management students. They found that these
students were ‘slightly’ field independent. They went on to suggest that
their teachers may need to broaden their teaching strategies to include
more group work and face-to-face interaction, strategies more appealing
and perhaps, also more helpful to field dependent learners.
In another study, Kahtz & Kling (1999), using the GEFT, examined
FD-FID vocational college students in a horticulture course using

126
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

computer-assisted instruction (CAI). Their findings were congruent with

the theory of field dependence. Field independent learners found the CAI
to be ‘beneficial’, but when surveyed asked that the process be given
‘greater structure’. The field dependent learners in the group, however, in
contrast did not think that there were any benefits when using the CAI
programme. There is also some evidence that the field independent
learners may prefer to enroll in distance education courses and limited
evidence that they may, on average, achieve superior academic results in
these courses (Lusk, 1998). Field independent learners may sometimes be
better at solving agricultural course problems (Torres & Cano, 1995; Dyer
& Osborne, 1996), as well as those in the area of educational technology
(Griffin & Franklin, 1996).
Nonetheless, the evidence which could be used to support the
contention that a certain cognitive style strength (i.e. higher measured
field dependence) leads to better learned performance is still not
widespread, although there have been some positive findings in the
nursing, educational technology and agricultural education areas. Studies
such as these, however, have tended to use small samples, lacked control
and are not convincing enough to allow reliable wider generalisation to
other fields. Having said all of this, there is certainly limited evidence, in
certain specialised areas, to suggest that vocational students who, on
average, score higher on field independence may be at an advantage if the
problems to be solved relevant to the subject matter taught, learned and
assessed require significant analytical skill (e.g. Wieseman et al, 1992).

Improving the Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning

Hayes & Allison (1998) recently have examined the research evidence
about the issue of improving the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
They argue that unstructured experiential learning will be less effective
where the cognitive or information processing style of the learners (e.g.
FD) does not match the information processing demands of the
classroom. In these cases, increasing the structure of the subject matter,
and the amount of practice and feedback (including critical feedback) will
improve learning.
Matching the cognitive style of the learners with that of the learning
activity, so Allison & Hayes (1996) have stated, does work in at least some
limited ways, to improve learned performance in 12 out of 19 studies that
they reviewed. That does not mean, however, as has already been
pointed out, that the resulting learning will transfer effectively to ‘new’
situations in the workplace or to another similar context. Nor does it
suggest that a particular style characteristic (e.g. FID) will always be the
‘best’ one or the most suitable one for the new workplace problem to be
solved. Nevertheless, matching the cognitive style of the vocational
teacher to that of the students (which usually is not easy or appropriate,

127
R.T. Pithers

as it will vary across a group of students), as has already been outlined,

can have short-term benefits. One such benefit is that it has been linked
to the initial development of more positive student/teacher attitudes.
There may also be in some circumstances, the sort of short-term learning
gains that Hayes & Allison (1998) have pointed out.
The only matching type studies to examine learned performance in
educational settings have found the process led to improved
performance for only the field independent learners. Nevertheless,
mismatching led to improved performance for more field dependent
individuals. Hayes & Allison provide a quite plausible explanation for the
dilemma: field dependent teachers fail to provide the sort of explicit
organisation of material and well defined structure that is needed by field
dependent learners.

Concluding Comments
Hayes & Allison (1998) concluded their paper by stating that cognitive
learning style is a potentially potent education and training variable
capable of influencing the quality of learning at the individual and at the
organisational level. There is certainly support for this notion in the
research literature reviewed here, using one of the major constructs in
the area of cognitive style: namely, field dependence-field independence.
The classification and measurement of FD-FID over almost 30 odd years,
predominantly using the GEFT, has generated much useful data, and a
host of theoretical conceptions relevant to understanding the wider area
of an individual’s more global or more analytic type of thinking. Cognitive
style research and especially work on the field dependence-field
independence dimension, certainly showed much early promise. This was
especially so in terms of the practical idea of the vocational teacher
matching his or her cognitive style to a that of their students’, but now
this simple approach has been shown to have serious limitations.
Overall, the weight of research evidence in the area of teacher-
learner style matching, has not led to many clear, long-term suggestions
or solutions for improving learning and learned performance, that is as
distinct from the possibility of reported improvement in classroom
attitudes and short-term increases in student satisfaction. The approach,
nevertheless, has certainly led to many suggestions for improving variety
in teaching methodology and to acknowledgement of the importance of
the teacher demonstrating and engaging in critical thinking and problem-
solving behaviour of different forms.
Furthermore, it has led to a notion of the importance of the learner
attempting to learn and apply style flexibility, based on the type of
problem to be solved. Fortunately, the simple solution of matching the
teacher’s and the learner’s cognitive style (i.e. a teacher adopting a field
dependent style and relevant set of behaviour with a group of students

128
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

who tend to be field dependent) has been shown to be problematic over

the longer term. This is both during a course and later at work, where the
learner may need to adopt a different style or information processing
approach to achieve the most appropriate or the ‘best’ quality decision
or solution. In a general sense, practising and reinforcing mostly those
attitudes and behaviours associated with either field dependence or field
independence may lead to myopic stereotypes that in practice are
counter productive in some work settings.
If anything of enduring importance emerges from this review, it is
the notion that vocational teachers, as well as students ought to be aware
of the range of cognitive style and how a cognitive style concept like field
dependence-field independence may impact on perception, learning and
problem solving. Teachers and their students need to be taught to adopt
a flexible approach to cognitive style attitudes, thinking and behaviour.
All individuals in education and training need to develop self-awareness
about themselves in terms of any preferred cognitive style characteristics
(e.g. FD or FID preference), but then be able to select and apply the
information processing approach (e.g. interactive or individually
analytical), which best suits the new problem or situation.
In short, the field dependence-field independence dimension of
cognitive learning style research has certainly been relatively useful
addition to educational research and practice, even if over 30 years it has
tended to generate more questions than it has answers. It remains an
area in which insights can continue to be gained about important issues
in education generally, and vocational education and training more
particularly. This is because the theory and research in the area of field
dependence-field independence continues to provide evidence and
insights into how individual learners prefer to attend, perceive and
process information. It also provides insights about how they think and
apply their learning to solve problems not only in the classroom, but also
in practice at their workplace.

Correspondence
R. T. Pithers, Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney,
PO Box 123, Broadway, New South Wales 2007, Australia
([email protected]).

References
Allison, C.W. & Hayes, J. (1996) The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition
analysis for organisational research, Journal of Management Studies, 33,
pp. 119-135.
Brodzinski, D. (1982) Relationship Between Cognitive Style and Cognitive
Development, Developmental Psychology, 18, pp. 617-626.

129
R.T. Pithers
Derussey, E. & Futch, E. (1971) Field Dependence-independence as Related to
College Curricula, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, pp. 1235-1237.
DeSanctis, G. & Dunikoski, R. (1983) Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric
data for a sample of business students, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56,
pp. 707-710.
Dyer, J.E. & Osborne, E.W. (1996) Effects of Teaching Approach on Problem
Solving Ability of Agricultural Students with Varying Learning Styles, Journal
of Agricultural Education, 37, pp. 36-43.
Fergusson, L.C. (1993) Field Independence and Achievement in College Art: a
reexamination, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, pp. 1104-1106.
Griffin, R. & Franklin, G. (1996) Can College Academic Performance Be Predicted
Using a Measure of Cognitive Style? Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 24, pp. 375-379.
Hayes, J. & Allison, C.W. (1998) Cognitive Style and the Theory and Practice of
Individual and Collective Learning in Organisations, Human Relations, 51,
pp. 847-871.
Kahtz, A.W. & Kling, G. (1999) Field Dependent and Field Independent
Conceptualisations of Various Instructional Methods: a qualitative analysis,
Educational Psychology, 19, pp. 413-429.
Kelleher, W. E. (1997) The Group Embedded Figures Test: field
dependence/independence and undergraduate commerce major, College
Student Journal, 31, pp. 115-121.
Leonard, N.H. Scholl, R. & Kowalski, K. (1999) Information Processing Style and
Decision Making, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 20, pp. 407-420.
Lusk, S.C. (1998) The Relationship Between Cognitive Styles and Academic
Achievement, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, pp. 137-147.
Lusk, E. & Wright, H. (1981) Differences in Sex and Curricula on Learning and
Group Embedded Figures Test, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, pp. 8-10.
March, J. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,
Organizational Science, 2, pp. 71-87.
McKenna, F.P. (1990) Learning Implications of Field-dependence, Independence:
cognitive style vs cognitive ability, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4,
pp. 425-437.
McRae, L. & Young, J. (1990) Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric data
for a sample of Canadian undergraduate business students, Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 67, pp. 195-198.
Melancon, J.G. & Thompson, B. (1989) Measurement Characteristics of the
Embedded Figures Test, Psychology in Schools, 26, pp. 69-78.
Messick, S. (1976) Personality Consistencies in Cognition and Creativity, in
S. Messick & Associates (Eds) Individuality and Learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Messick, S. (1996) Bridging Cognition and Personality in Education: the role of
style in performance and development, European Journal of Personality, 10,
pp. 353-376.

130
 COGNITIVE LEARNING STYLE

Murphy, H. & Casey, B. (1997) Field Dependence/Independence and

Undergraduate Academic Performance in an Information Management
Program, College Student Journal, 31, pp. 45-51.
Murphy, H.J. & Doucette, P.A. (1997) The Group Embedded Figures Test:
undergraduate business concentration and analytical skills, Journal of
Education for Business, 73, pp. 39-43.
O’Brien, T. & Wilkinson, N. (1992) Cognitive Styles and Performance on the
National Council of State Boards of Nursing Licensure Examination, College,
26, pp. 156-161.
Osipow, S.H. (1969) Cognitive Styles in Education – Vocational Preferences and
Selection, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, pp. 534-546.
Pithers, R.T. (2000) Field Dependence–Field Independence and Vocational
Teachers, paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Post-
compulsory Education and Training, Gold Coast, December.
Riding, R. & Cheema, I. (1991) Cognitive Styles – an overview and integration,
Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 193-216.
Rush, G. & Moore, D. (1991) Effects of Restructuring Training and Cognitive Style,
Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 309-321.
Saracho, O.N. (1989) The Early Childhood Teacher’s Cognitive Style and
Instructional Behaviors, Early Childhood Development and Care, 49,
pp. 153-159.
Saracho, O.N. (1991) Students’ Preference for Field Dependence/Independence
Teacher Characteristics, Educational Psychology, 11, pp. 323-332.
Saracho, O. & Spodek, B. (1981) Teachers’ Cognitive Styles and their Educational
Implications, Educational Forum, 45, pp. 153-159.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988) Mental Self-government: a theory of intellectual styles and
their development, Human Development, 31, pp. 197-224.
Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (1997) Are Cognitive Learning Styles Still in
Style? American Psychologist, 52, pp. 700-712.
Steufert, S. & Nogami, G. (1989) Cognitive Style and Complexity, in C. Cooper &
I. Robertson (Eds) International Review of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Thompson, B. & Melancon, J.G. (1987) Measurement Characteristics of the GEFT,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, pp. 765-772.
Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M. (1997) Field Dependence – Independence and Academic
Achievement, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, pp. 199-212.
Torres, R.M. & Cano, J. (1995) Critical Thinking as Influenced by Learning Style,
Journal of Agricultural Education, 36, pp. 54-63.
Wieseman, A., Portis S. & Simpson, F. (1992) An Analysis of the Relationship
Between Cognitive Styles and Grades, College Student Journal, 26, pp. 512-517.
Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D.R. (1981) Cognitive Styles: essence and origins, field
dependence and field independence, Psychological Issues, 14, Whole issue
No. 51.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E. & Karp, S. (1971) A Manual for The Group
Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

131
R.T. Pithers
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C., Goodenough, D. & Cox, P. (1977a) Field Dependent and
Field Independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications, Review
of Educational Research, 47, pp. 1-64.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P., Goodenough, D., Friedman, F., Owen, D. & Raskin, E.
(1977b) Role of Field Dependent and Field Independent Cognitive Styles in
Academic Evolution: a longitudinal study, Journal of Educational Psychology,
69, pp. 197-211.
Young, J., Keller, W. & McRae, L. (1989) Field Independence and Business
Students’ Achievement, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, pp. 997-998.

132