Cognitive Style in Early Education

Olivia N. Saracho

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138630000
• eBook ISBN: 9781351808224
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Cognitive style, a psychological construct, characterizes individual differences in styles of perceiving, remembering, thinking and judging. Originally published in 1990, this volume explores important findings emerging from contemporary research on cognitive style in young children and the implications for classroom practice at the time. Suggestions are provided for using knowledge of cognitive style in classroom settings to match learning tasks to cognitive style and to develop cognitive flexibility. Educators can use knowledge of young children's and teachers' cognitive styles to improve the quality of education and educational opportunities for all children.

CHAPTER 1

Cognitive styles in children: some evolving trends¹

NATHAN KOGAN

Graduate Faculty, New School for Social Research
and

CAROLYN SAARNI

Sonoma State University

INTRODUCTION

An exhaustive review of the 40-year post-World War II history of cognitive styles would require a rather lengthy book to do adequate justice to the topic. To attempt such a review within the space limitations of a chapter would be a foolhardy venture unless a high degree of selectivity could be exercised. In this regard, the historical trends in the field have made our assignment easier, for of the 19 styles delineated by Messick (1976) more than a decade ago, only a few continue to generate research activity. Naturally, these few styles will receive primary emphasis in the present chapter. The reduction in the sheer number of styles under active exploration does not in itself solve the selectivity problem, however, for the reason that those particular cognitive styles can lay claim to hundreds, if not thousands, of published and unpublished studies. Fortunately, the past decade has witnessed numerous scholarly efforts to provide integrated reviews of this abundant literature, and these in fact offer more in-depth treatments of the cognitive-style domain than it is possible to offer in a single chapter. References to such reviews will be provided throughout this essay to permit the interested reader to gain access to the large corpus of empirical work that can be classified under the cognitive-style rubric.

Classification of Cognitive Styles

Kogan (1973) has distinguished three classes of cognitive styles which may be conceived as points on a continuum, ranging from those primarily determined by ability to those primarily determined by strategic preference. The classification of cognitive styles into these three categories rests on the assessment procedure as well as the conceptualization of the construct.

Type I cognitive styles emphasize accuracy of performance and are therefore heavily dependent upon the ability to do well on the criterial tasks. Illustrative of Type I cognitive styles is the field independence-dependence construct initially formulated and exhaustively studied by Witkin and his associates (Witkin et al., 1954; Witkin et al., 1962). Field independence reflects relatively accurate performance, field dependence relatively inaccurate performance on a set of criterial spatial tasks. To use the term style for Type I constructs may be less than appropriate, since style connotes a consistency of behavioral preference or orientation rather than the presence or absence of specific aptitudes. The issue is a complicated one, however, and Kogan (1988) has, in fact, argued the case for a “fuzzy boundary” between styles and abilities. Where Type I styles are concerned, the style-ability distinction may have more to do with the theoretical traditions from which each derive than with concrete operational measures.

Type II cognitive styles arc characterized by an implicit or explicit evaluation dimension (e.g., complexity-simplicity). While accuracy of performance is not relevant to the assessment tasks of Type II cognitive styles, superiority is attributed to certain levels or types of performance. An example of a Type II cognitive style is the conceptualization construct proposed by Kagan, Moss, and Sigel (1963). They have developed a tripartite system for distinguishing classification rationales: analytic-descriptive, categorical-inferential, and relational-thematic. The last of these is considered less desirable and less mature relative to the first two, thus indicating a value judgment in performance assessment.

Type III cognitive styles may be viewed as most deserving of the term “style.” Neither accuracy of performance nor value judgment are relevant in the assessment. Pettigrew’s (1958) breadth of categorization task is illustrative of value-free, preference-oriented Type III cognitive styles. While the initial conceptualization and measurement of Type III cognitive styles emphasized their value-free character, later research with them has sometimes turned up correlates that associate the cognitive style with either an ability dimension or with increasing maturity. Thus Type III cognitive styles may move into the Type II category as a consequence of the accumulation of relevant research evidence.

Development Factors in Cognitive Styles

A fundamental issue in the cognitive-style domain has concerned the long-term stability of such constructs (Kogan 1982; 1983). Investigators have also inquired how far into early childhood and infancy one can project cognitive styles without changing their psychological meaning (Kogan, 1976a). Longitudinal studies are best suited to problems concerning continuity, but considerable difficulty arises in conducting such research due to the frequent necessity of modifying the cognitive-style assessment task for administration to young children. Task modification may result in a fundamental change in the construct in question, hence raising serious problems of construct validity. If there are shifts with age in magnitude and/or direction of relationships between a particular cognitive style and other psychological dimensions, considerable discontinuity in the meaning of the cognitive-style construct in question is indicated.

Another developmental aspect of cognitive style concerns their relationship to differential ability. Type I cognitive styles, closest to being determined by ability, may represent a capacity that has to be acquired by the young child. Some Type II and III cognitive styles may also reflect capacity differences in young children.

Finally, the developmental psychologist must analyze his/her data separately by sex, for cognitive style patterns are often different for the two sexes. Correlational evidence indicates that pre-school females are one-half to a full year ahead of preschool boys in the emergence of certain cognitive styles in a stable form. Examination of mean differences also tends to favor pre-school females on particular cognitive styles. There appear to be few, if any, stylistic dimensions on which males exceed females in the pre-school period. Kogan (1976a) has systematically reviewed much of this evidence.

Recently, investigators have begun to forge a link to mainstream cognitive-developmental theory (Piagetian and neo-Piagetian) by relating cognitive-style variables to developmental milestones (e.g., the attainment of conservation, the decline of spatial egocentrism, and the onset of formal operations). Such work has recently been reviewed by Brodzinsky (1985) and Kogan (1983; 1985), and a recent volume edited by Globerson and Zelniker (1988) is likely to stimulate further research on the articulation between cognitive style and cognitive-developmental processes.

The cognitive styles discussed in the present chapter are field dependence-independence, reflection-impulsivity, conceptualization style, breadth of categorization, and metaphoric sensitivity. The foregoing list is by no means exhaustive. However these dimensions have been the object of systematic and recent research effort. Cognitive complexity-simplicity and the cluster of cognitive controls (scanning, levelling-sharpening, constricted-flexible control, and tolerance for unrealistic experiences), though of theoretical importance, no longer appear to play a center-stage role in contemporary cognitive-style research. Accordingly, the treatment of those constructs in the present chapter is primarily descriptive and quite brief. The review is organized so as to consider the conceptualization and assessment procedures of each cognitive style, to discuss some of the more significant developmentally-oriented research relevant to the style in question, and to conclude with some critical comments.

FIELD DEPENDENCE-INDEPENDENCE

Conceptualization and Measurement

This stylistic dimension refers to a mode of perceiving part-whole relations. In field-dependent perception there is relative inability to perceive parts of a field as separable from the whole. In contrast, perception that is field independent is characterized by analysis of the field into discrete parts. In the former mode of perception, the person has difficulty in disembedding parts from their context; in the latter mode, the individual can do this readily. The dimension is bipolar, and it can be presumed that people distribute themselves along this bipolar continuum in a manner consistent with the normal curve.

Witkin and his associates (1954; 1962) have developed three laboratory tasks to assess this mode of perception; all three have a strong spatial component. They are the rod-and-frame task, the embedded-figures task, and the body-adjustment task. The last one has rarely been used outside of Witkin’s laboratory, as it entails tilting both a room and a chair, with the subject’s task being the adjustment of the chair to the true vertical. The rod-and-frame task consists of the subject viewing a luminous square frame as he or she sits in a completely darkened room. Within the frame, pivoted at its center, is a luminous rod which can be tilted in either direction, as can the frame. The task for the subject is to adjust the rod to the true vertical position, disregarding the tilt of the frame as much as possible in his/her judgment. The degree to which one is accurate in estimating the true vertical over several trials is the measure of relative field dependence or independence. A portable rod-and-frame apparatus developed by Oltman (1968) has generally been used in research with children. The items of the embedded-figures task require the subject to identify simple geometric figures which have been embedded in complex designs. The measure of field dependence is the average length of time the subject requires to find the simple figures. Children’s versions of the embedded figures task are available (Witkin et al., 1971; Coates, 1972). In all of the field dependence-independence tasks, the more accurate the person’s judgment, the more field independent he or she is presumed to be.

Performance on the field-independence tasks has been assumed by Witkin to be grounded in a single basic process of development: psychological differentiation. Witkin’s psychological differentiation is a growth process of “successively more complex reintegrations of the system” (1962, p. 11) within the psychological make-up of the individual. Complexity of integration is not operationally defined by Witkin, although he contends that complexity is essentially a function of the level of differentiation. It is no simple matter to comprehend what Witkin precisely means by psychological differentiation. Perhaps it is best understood intuitively as articulation of experience.

Any discussion of the present topic cannot ignore the dramatic conceptual transformations that took place between field-dependence theory as outlined in the book by Witkin et al. (1962) and its transformation in the Witkin and Goodenough (1981) volume published almost 20 years later. The earlier work was strongly value-laden: field independents possessed a multitude of virtues, field dependents could lay claim to virtually none. In the later view, a bipolar position was advanced in which field independents are endowed with restructuring skills (primarily spatial in character) and field dependents are distinguished by a diversity of interpersonal sensitivities. Almost equal in importance to the foregoing theoretical shift is the recognition that the embedded-figures and rod-and-frame tasks may be assessing distinctive (though related) processes. Thus, embedded-figures performance is considered to fall within a restructuring cluster, whereas rod-and-frame performance is viewed as a measure of perception of the upright. The separation of these two components of field dependence obviously argues against the practice of combining them in a composite, when relating field dependence-independence to other kinds of assessments.

Reviews of field dependence-independence research are presently available in the domains of learning and memory (Goodenough, 1976), cross-cultural differences (Witkin & Berry, 1975), interpersonal behavior (Witkin & Goodenough, 1977), educational applications (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977), and developmental origins (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). Readers seeking detailed research summaries of relevant literature in the above domains would be well advised to consult the references cited. A more critical review written from a develo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction to the Series
• Preface
• Introduction
• SECTION I. Background Information
• 1. Cognitive Styles in Children: some evolving trends
• 2. Limitations of Applying Cognitive Style to Early Childhood Education
• 3. Cognitive Style and the Evaluation of Young Children’s Educational Programs
• SECTION II. Implications of Cognitive Processes for Classroom Procedures
• 4. An Information Processing View of Field Dependence-Independence
• 5. The Importance of Cognitive Style in Children’s Acquisition of Reading Skill
• 6. Symbolic Play and Ideational Fluency as Aspects of the Evolving Divergent Cognitive Style in Young Children
• 7. The Development of Cognitive Organization in Young Children: an exploratory study
• 8. The Influence of Cognitive Style on the Teaching Practices of Elementary Teachers
• SECTION III. Implications of Cognitive Style on Diverse Populations
• 9. A Bicognitive-Multicultural Model for a Pluralistic Education
• 10. Academic Literacy in Linguistic Minority Children: the connections between language, cognition and culture
• 11. The Influence of Perceptual Development on Cognitive Style: cross ethnic comparisons
• 12. Cognitive Style and the Gifted Young Child
• SECTION IV. Summary
• 13. Reflecting on Individual Differences in Young Children: cognitive style and early education
• About the Contributors
• Index