[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Field dependence–independence (FDI) has long been conceptualized and discussed as a cognitive style relevant to numerous educational approaches and outcomes. However, the FDI construct is most often measured as a cognitive ability, as opposed to a style, using instruments such as the Group-Embedded Figures test (GEFT) or the Hidden Figures Test (HFT). Specifically, FDI is typically measured as visuospatial ability and executive functioning in working memory. While measurement and use of FDI within psychological and educational research has often resulted in misleading or inconsistent discussion about cognitive styles, this review examines how the long history of FDI research continues to be relevant to contemporary instructional contexts. A broader recognition of FDI as ability is suggested in order to (a) better distinguish ability measurements from those of styles, (b) encourage a reinterpretation and awareness of theoretical connections among past studies that use instruments such as GEFT or HFT, and (c) highlight suggestions for future research and application, particularly with contemporary interactive multimedia learning tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adams, V. M., & McLeod, D. B. (1979). The interaction of field independence with discovery learning in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004). Examining effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-dependent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. M., & Dwyer, F. (2005). Effects of instructional strategies and individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2002). Cognitive style and hypermedia navigation: Development of a learning model. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive modeling of student learning in web-based instructional programs. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(3), 375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coward, R. T., Davis, J. K., & Wichern, R. O. (1978). Cognitive style and perceptions of the ideal teacher. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3(3), 232–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, L. (1990). A critique of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 47(2), 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, H. L., & Moore, D. M. (2000). Interaction of cognitive style and learner control in a hypermedia environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 369–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dassonville, P., Walter, E., & Lunger, K. (2006). Illusions of space, field dependence and the efficiency of working memory. Journal of Vision, 6(6), 476.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiStefano, J. J. (1970). Interpersonal perceptions of field independent and filed dependent teachers and students (Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 463A–464A (University Microfilms No. 70–11,225).

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Hidden figures test: CF-1, revised: Kit of referenced tests for cognitive factors. Princeton: Educational Testing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flexor, B. K., & Roberge, J. J. (1980). IQ, field dependence–independence, and the development of formal operational thought. The Journal of General Psychology, 103, 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, N., & Chen, S. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, B. M. (1984). Effect of field independence–dependence and study technique on learning from lecture. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, B. M. (1986). Cognitive styles and teacher education: Field dependence and areas of specialization among teacher education majors. Journal of Educational Research, 80(1), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettinger, M. (1984). Achievement as a function of time spent learning and time needed for learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 617–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghinea, G., & Chen, S. (2003). The impact of cognitive styles on perceptual distributed multimedia quality. British Journal of Educational technology, 34(4), 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. (1961). Field dependence and intellectual functioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, M. (2000). The intermediate style position. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Raynor (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences, Volume 1, Cognitive styles (pp. 65–78). Stamford CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 423(6939), 534–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 18(1), 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, J. G., & McNamara, S. E. (1985, March). Matching feedback and cognitive style in a visual CAI task. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 260 105).

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. (2006). The effect of items in working memory on the deployment of attention and the eyes during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(6), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, P. J. (1980). Student achievement in biology in terms of cognitive styles of students and teachers (Doctoral Dissertation, Louisiana State University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3403.

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1991). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1987). Style over substance: Assessing the effectiveness of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khine, M. S. (1996). The interaction of cognitive styles with varying levels of feedback in multimedia presentation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(3), 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingberg, T., Forssberg, H., & Westerberg, H. (2002). Training of working memory in children with ADHD. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(6), 781–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leader, L. F., & Klein, J. D. (1996). The effects of search tool type and cognitive style on performance during hypermedia database searches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M., Jackson, R. A., & Palmer, J. (1986). On the relation between spatial ability and field independence. Intelligence, 10(2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of dual-coding theory from multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1994). The matter of cognitive style: Manifestations of personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1996). Bridging cognition and personality in education: The role of style in performance and development. European Journal of Personality, 10, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, F. P. (1984). Measures of field dependence: Cognitive style or cognitive ability? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 593–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. A. (1973). Styles of teacher behavior under simulated teaching conditions (Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 3149A–3150A (University Microfilms No. 73-30,449).

  • Moran, A. (1985). Unresolved issues in research on field dependence–independence. Social Behavior and Personality, 13(2), 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 63–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Rettinger, D., Shah, P., & Hegerty, M. (2001a). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Witzki, A. H., & Emerson, M. J. (2001b). Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the hidden figures test. Memory, 9(4), 445–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oltman, P. K. (1968). A portable rod-and-frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 503–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J. T., Oman, C. M., Shebilske, W. L., Beall, A. C., Liu, A., & Natapoff, A. (2002). Training, transfer, and retention of three-dimensional spatial memory in virtual environments. Journal of Vestibular Research, 12, 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. A., & Turner, T. E. (2000). Field dependence revisited I: Intelligence. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittschof, K., Griffin, M., & Custer, W. (1998). Learner differences affecting schemata for thematic maps. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 179–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N. (1993). The effects of teachers’ cognitive styles on their students’ academic achievement. International Journal of Early Childhood, 25(2), 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N. (2000). A framework for effective classroom teaching: Matching teachers’ and students’ cognitive styles. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Raynor (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences, Volume 1, Cognitive styles (pp. 297–314). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1994). Matching preschool children’s and teacher’s cognitive styles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 683–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarts, N., & Phillipe, A. (1991). Individual differences in the retention of maps. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(2), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwen, T. M. (1970). The effect of cognitive styles and instructional sequences on learning a hierarchical task. (Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 2797A–2798A (University Microfilms No. 70-23,380).

  • Slavin, R. E. (2000). Educational psychology theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl S. A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles. American Educator, 23(3), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasz, C., Shavelson, R. J., Cox, D. L., & Moore, C. A. (1976). Field independence and the structuring of knowledge in a social studies minicourse. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 550–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinfeld, S. L. (1973). Level of differentiation and age as predictors of reinforcement effectiveness (Doctoral Dissertation, Hofstra University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 2912B–2913B (University Microfilms No. 73-25,324).

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Thinking styles inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University.

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2002). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann, J. (1989). Measures of cognitive styles: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field dependence–independence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasi, D., Chang, L., Caparelli, E., & Ernst, T. (2007). Different activation patterns for working memory load and visual attention load. Brain Research, 1132(9), 158–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, E., & Dassonville, P. (2007). In search of the hidden: contextual processing in parietal cortex. Journal of Vision, 7(9), 1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilborn, M. R. (1981). An investigation of the relationship among proportional reasoning, field-dependence/independence, sex, and grades in science of eighth grade ISCS students (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University), Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 92.

  • Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Field dependence and field independence. New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, G. C. (2000). Applying learning style research in the classroom: Some cautions, the way ahead. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Raynor (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences, Volume 1, Cognitive styles (pp. 347–364). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, G. S. (1994). The effect of instructional control, cognitive style, and prior knowledge on learning of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22, 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2004). Field dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability––validating thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1295–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L, & Sternberg, R. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Kent Rittschof thanks Steve Bonham of the Center for Excellence in Teaching and the reviewers of ETR&D for their insightful comments on an early draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA, 30460-8144, USA

    Kent A. Rittschof

Authors
  1. Kent A. Rittschof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent A. Rittschof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rittschof, K.A. Field dependence–independence as visuospatial and executive functioning in working memory: implications for instructional systems design and research. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 99–114 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9093-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation