- Student diversity
Individual styles of learning and thinking.....................................................................................................
All of us, including our students, have preferred ways of learning. Teachers often refer to these differences as
learning styles, though this term may imply that students are more consistent across situations than is really the
case. One student may like to make diagrams to help remember a reading assignment, whereas another student
may prefer to write a sketchy outline instead. Yet in many cases, the students could in principle reverse the
strategies and still learn the material: if coaxed (or perhaps required), the diagram-maker could take notes for a
change and the note-taker could draw diagrams. Both would still learn, though neither might feel as comfortable as
when using the strategies that they prefer. This reality suggests that a balanced, middle-of-the-road approach may
be a teacher’s best response to students’ learning styles. Or put another way, it is good to support students’
preferred learning strategies where possible and appropriate, but neither necessary nor desirable to do so all of the
time (Loo, 2004; Stahl, 2002). Most of all, it is neither necessary nor possible to classify or label students according
to seemingly fixed learning styles and then allow them to learn only according to those styles. A student may prefer
to hear new material rather than see it; he may prefer for you to explain something orally, for example, rather than
to see it demonstrated in a video. But he may nonetheless tolerate or sometimes even prefer to see it demonstrated.
In the long run, in fact, he may learn it best by encountering the material in both ways, regardless of his habitual
preferences.
That said, there is evidence that individuals, including students, do differ in how they habitually think. These
differences are more specific than learning styles or preferences, and psychologists sometimes call them cognitive
styles, meaning typical ways of perceiving and remembering information, and typical ways of solving problems
and making decisions (Zhang & Sternberg, 2006). In a style of thinking called field dependence, for example,
individuals perceive patterns as a whole rather than focus on the parts of the pattern separately. In a
complementary tendency, called field independence, individuals are more inclined to analyze overall patterns
into their parts. Cognitive research from the 1940s to the present has found field dependence/independence
differences to be somewhat stable for any given person across situations, though not completely so (Witkin, Moore,
Goodenough, & Cox, 1977; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). Someone who is field dependent (perceives globally or
“wholistically”) in one situation, tends to a modest extent to perceive things globally or wholistically in other
situations. Field dependence and independence can be important in understanding students because the styles
affect students’ behaviors and preferences in school and classrooms. Field dependent persons tend to work better in
groups, it seems, and to prefer “open-ended” fields of study like literature and history. Field independent persons,
on the other hand, tend to work better alone and to prefer highly analytic studies like math and science. The
differences are only a tendency, however, and there are a lot of students who contradict the trends. As with the
broader notion of learning styles, the cognitive styles of field dependence and independence are useful for tailoring
instruction to particular students, but their guidance is only approximate. They neither can nor should be used to
“lock” students to particular modes of learning or to replace students’ own expressed preferences and choices about
curriculum.
Another cognitive style is impulsivity as compared to reflectivity. As the names imply, an impulsive cognitive
style is one in which a person reacts quickly, but as a result makes comparatively more errors. A reflective style is
the opposite: the person reacts more slowly and therefore makes fewer errors. As you might expect, the reflective
style would seem better suited to many academic demands of school. Research has found that this is indeed the
67