ories together and then oversimplify the new material
or miscategorize it altogether. They can miss distin-
guishing features among similar, yet not identical, ob-
jects. This could result in definitions of later
knowledge that are ambiguous.
Field-Dependence and Field-
Independence
Another area where individuals show differences
in their abilities to discriminate events or visual,
auditory, or tactile cues from their surrounding
environments is known as field-dependence/field-
independence. Herman Witkin conducted much of
the original research in this area in the 1950s. A field-
dependent person has difficulty finding a geometric
shape that is embedded or ‘‘hidden’’ in a background
with similar (but not identical) lines and shapes. The
conflicting patterns distract the person from iden-
tifying the given figure. A person who is field-
independent can readily identify the geometric
shape, regardless of the background in which it is set.
This manner of interpretation, however, is not limit-
ed to visual cues. Many researchers are studying audi-
tory and other sensory perception abilities that may
vary from person to person.
There is also a strong connection between this
cognitive style and social interactions. People who are
field-dependent are frequently described as being
very interpersonal and having a well-developed abili-
ty to read social cues and to openly convey their own
feelings. Others describe them as being very warm,
friendly, and personable. Interestingly, Witkin and
Donald Goodenough, in their 1981 book Cognitive
Styles, explained that this may be due to a lack of sepa-
ration between the self and the environment (or
‘‘field’’) on some level. Field-dependent people notice
a lack of structure in the environment (if it exists) and
are more affected by it than other people.
By contrast, individuals who are field-indepen-
dent use an ‘‘internal’’ frame of reference and can
easily impose their own sense of order in a situation
that is lacking structure. They are also observed to
function autonomously in social settings. They are
sometimes described as impersonal and task-
oriented. These people, however, do have the ability
to discern their own identity of self from the field. In
addition, a strong correlation has been discovered be-
tween gender and field orientation. Women are more
likely to be field-dependent, whereas men are fre-
quently field-independent. Career tasks and job de-
scriptions are also closely aligned with field-
dependence/field-independence.
Specifically of concern to educators is the discov-
ery that field-dependent children do not do as well in
large group settings or class activities where the les-
sons are not highly structured. There are also indica-
tions that these same individuals do not perform as
well on open-ended questions as compared to stu-
dents who are field-independent.Reflectivity and Impulsivity
Reflectivity and impulsivity are polar ends of a
spectrum in a third and very substantial cognitive
style. Studies in this domain began in the early 1960s
with several researchers, such as Jerome Kagan. One
of the methods for testing this cognitive style involves
administration of the Matching Familiar Figures
Test, which requires subjects to view a picture of an
object and then attempt to match the object when
presented with the same object in a group of similar
objects. The test is then scored according to the time
required to identify the objects and the accuracy of
identification.Neil Salkind and John Wright have studied scor-
ing measures for this cognitive style. People who are
slower than the median, but score more accurately
than the median, are considered to be ‘‘reflective.’’ In
a classroom, these would typically be the students who
take extended time on a task and produce very accu-
rate work. Those who test faster than the median but
score below the median of accuracy are ‘‘impulsive.’’
These individuals are frequently described as stu-
dents who rush through assignments, frequently miss-
ing the correct answers. In addition, impulsive
students do not consider as many alternative answers
when presented with open-ended questions as com-
pared to reflective students. These same students also
have a more global approach to information process-
ing and do not identify the parts of a whole as readily
as their peers. They also have difficulty with delayed
gratification on tasks. Reflective students are more
analytical in their problem-solving approach and do
not have the same level of difficulty with delayed grat-
ification.
Given that these differences in reflectivity-im-
pulsivity are apparent as early as preschool, it is fasci-
nating to consider developing classrooms that pro-
vide equal opportunities for learning and
demonstration of application to students at both ends
of this spectrum. Several studies indicate, however,
that the traditional classroom favors the reflective stu-
dents over the impulsive ones. Specific to education,
studies have found that students who are placed with
a reflective teacher tend to score more reflectivity at
the end of the year than at the beginning, while stu-
dents placed with an impulsive teacher score higher
levels of impulsivity at the end of the year. This indi-
cates that there is some environmental influence onCOGNITIVE STYLE 93