Content area
Full Text
Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: understanding style differences in learning and behaviour
RiCHARD RIDING & STEPHEN RAYNER, 1998 London, David Fulton Publishers ISBN: 1-85346-480-5, 16.99 paperback, 217 pp.
Thinking Styles
ROBERT J. STERNBERG, 1997 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press ISBN: 0-521-55316-4, 16.95 hardback, 180 pp.
What has been happening in the world of cognitive styles in recent years? Taken together, these two books reveal much of the story. But then the differences in the two approaches becomes remarkable, with one of the titles representing a significant advance within the field. Several decades ago, the notion of cognitive style was hailed as a significant discovery. Around the time of World War II, it was found that certain individuals possess a characteristic style of responding to laboratory tasks (i.e. field-independence) that would predict their ability to handle the complexities of controlling an aeroplane under adversity. Pilots must discern direction amongst ambiguity, locate accurate co-ordinates amidst chaos, focus on key geometric features and disregard nuisance inputs. Field-independence, however, was toted as a characteristic style of processing information, a trait distinct from general ability or IQ. Certainly, field-independent people had advantages in many defined contexts. But, in other situations, such acute responding dispositions could work against the individual. In some circumstances the tendency to respond to the totality of the stimulus input and be less swayed by direct perceptual cues may prove more adaptive. Field-dependent people, for example, may be more sensitive in coping with complex social interactions.
Over the past 40 years, the notion of styles in behavioural responding has proved popular. Researchers have postulated learning styles, cognitive styles, studying pattern styles, thinking styles, learning preference styles, attributional styles and personality-centred styles. Riding and Rayner provide a thorough and considered review (Chapters 2 and 3) of the diverse types of styles and give a critical commentary on this diverse literature. Although there has been some valuable work achieved, it is apparent that most of the instruments purported to measure style attributes are woefully inadequate, superficial devices, and some appear wedded to commercial interests. Indeed, an impression is easily gained is that the very construct of style is a dubious one, noted by one past reviewer as a 'chimera'. Despite a very large number of studies, it proved impossible...