Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles 9780805834307, 0805834303, 9781410605986, 1410605981, 0805834311

Citation preview

P E R S P E C T IV E S ON THINKING, LEARNING, a n d ^ C O G N IT IV E STY LES Edited by

Robert J . Sternberg • Li-Fang Zhang

Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles

This page intentionally left blank

P e r s p e c t iv e s o n T h in k in g, L e a rn in g , a n d C o g n itiv e S t y le s

Edited by

Robert Sternberg Yale University

Li-fang Zhang University of Hong Kong

3 Routledge Taylor & Francis Croup New York London

C opyright © 2001 by Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc. All rights reserved. N o part o f this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other m eans, w ithout prior written permission o f the pub­ lisher.

First published by Law rence Erlbaum A ssociates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue M ahw ah, NJ 07430

This edition published 2011 by Routledge Roulledge Taylor & Francis Group 7 1 1 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group 2 Park Square, Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon O X I4 4RN

C over design by Kathryn H oughtaling Lacey Library o f C ongress Cataloging-in-Publication D ata Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles / edited by Robert Sternberg, Li-fang Zhang. p. cm. — (The educational psychology series)

Includes bibliographical references and index. ISB N 0-8058-3430-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISB N 0-8058-3431-1 ( p b k .: alk. paper) 1. C ognitive styles. 2. T h ou gh t and thinking. 3. H um an inform ation processing. 4. Learning, Psychology of. I. Sternberg, Robert J. U. Zhang, Li-fang. III. Scries. B F 3 1 1 .P 3 7 5 2001 153— dc21 00-059606 C IP

Contents Preface 1 A C a p su le History of T heory an d R e se a rc h on S ty les

l

R o b e rt J. S te rn b e rg a n d E le n a L. G rig o re n k o

2

Abilities, Interests, an d S ty les a s A ptitudes for Learning: A P erson -Situ ation interaction P ersp ectiv e

23

J o s e p h S. R e n z u lli a n d D a u id Yun D a i

3

The Nature an d Effects of Cognitive Style

47

R ic h a rd R id in g

4

Enhancing Learning: A Matter of Style or A p p roach ?

73

J o h n D ig g s

5

C o n cep tio n s, S ty les, an d A p p ro a c h e s within Higher E ducation : Analytic A b straction s an d E very d ay E xperien ce

10 3

N o e l E n tw is tle , V elda M c C u n e , a n d P a u l W alker

6

T he Lived S p a c e of Learning: An inquiry into In d igen o u s Australian University S tu d e n ts’ E x p erien ce s of Studying G illia n M. B o u lto n - L e w is , F e re n ce M o rto n , a n d L y n n A. W ilss

137

vi

7

CONTENTS

C orrelates of A p p ro a c h e s to Learning: A Cross-Cultural M eta-Analysis

163

D a v id W a tkin s

8

Thinking Sty les A c ro ss C ultures: Their R elation sh ip s With Student Learning

197

L i-fa n g Z h a n g a n d R o b e rt J. S te rn b e rg

9

Experiential L earning Theory: P reviou s R e se a rc h an d New D irections

227

D a v id A . K olb, R ic h a rd E. B o y a tz is , a n d C h a ra la m p o s M a in e m elis

10

E pilogue: Another M ysterious Affair at S ty les

249

R o b e rt J. S te rn b e rg

Author Index

253

Su b ject Index

261

Preface T r a d itio n a lly , m a n y p s y c h o lo g is ts a n d e d u c a t o r s h a v e b e lie v e d th a t p e o p le ’s s u c c e s s e s a n d fa ilu r e s a r e a ttr ib u ta b le m a in ly to in d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s in a b ilitie s. F o r th e p a s t few d e c a d e s , h o w e v e r, in v e s tig a to r s h a v e b e e n stu d y in g th e r o le s o f th in k in g , le a r n in g , a n d c o g n it iv e sty le s in p e r fo r m a n c e w ith b o th a c a d e m ic a n d n o n a c a d e m ic s e ttin g s . A lt h o u g h th e s e th r e e k in d s o f sty le s m a y b e v ie w e d a s o v e r la p p in g h isto r ic a lly , th ey h a v e b e e n c o n c e p t u ­ a liz e d in d iffe r e n t w ay s. C o n sid e r , fo r e x a m p le , a to p ic in s c h o o l s u c h a s th e C iv il W a r in th e U n ite d S t a t e s . L earn in g styles m ig h t b e u se d to c h a r a c te riz e h ow o n e p refe rs to le arn a b o u t th e C iv il W ar. W o u ld o n e ra th e r le a rn a b o u t it v isu ally (by r e a d in g ) or a u d ito rily (by le c tu rc s) ? O r p e r h a p s o n e w o u ld p re fe r a n a c tiv e fo rm o f le a r n ­ in g (sim u la tin g it) v e r su s a p a ssiv e form (re a d in g or liste n in g to m a te r ia l a b o u t it). T hinking styles m ig h t b e u se d to c h a r a c te riz e h ow o n e p refe rs to th in k a b o u t m a te r ia l as o n e is le a r n in g it o r a fte r o n e a lre a d y k n o w s it. F o r e x a m p le , w o u ld o n e r a th e r th in k a b o u t g lo b a l issu e s o r lo c a l issu e s? W ou ld o n e p refe r to e v a lu ­ a te w h a t o n e h a s le a r n e d o r to g o b e y o n d w h a t o n e h a s le a rn e d ? C ognitive styles m ig h t be u se d to c h a r a c te riz e w ays o f c o g n iz in g th e in fo r m a ­ tio n . F o r e x a m p le , d o e s o n e te n d to b e a sp litter, se e in g e a c h b a ttle as a d istin c t en tity, or a s a lu m p er, v ie w in g m an y o r all o f th e b a ttle s a s sim ila r a c ts o f w ar? D o e s o n e te n d to b e im p u lsiv e in ju m p in g to c o n c lu sio n s a b o u t th e w ar o r to b e re fle c tiv e ? T h e c o g n itiv e sty le s te n d to b e c lo se r to p e r so n a lity th a n arc th e o th e r ty p es o f sty les. In g e n e r a l, a b ilitie s r e fe r to th in g s o n e c a n d o , s u c h a s to e x e c u te sk ills or sk ill c o m b in a tio n s ( s t r a t e g i e s ) . S t y le s r e fe r to p r e fe r e n c e s in th e u se o f a b ili­ tie s. F o r e x a m p le , in o n e th e o ry (W itk in , D y k , F a te r s o n , G o o d e n o u g h an d K a r p , 1 9 6 2 ) , p e o p le w ith a f ie ld - d e p e n d e n t sty le te n d to b e u n a b le to s e p a ­ r a te th in g s to w h ich th ey a tte n d from th e c o n t e x t in w h ic h th ey a tte n d to th e s e th in g s, w h e re p e o p le w ith a f ie ld - d e p e n d e n t sty le a re a b le to m a k e s u c h a s e p a r a tio n . In a n o t h e r w e ll-k n o w n th eo ry , a d e e p - p r o c e s s in g str a te g y

vii

viii

PREFACE

is to u se o n e ’s a b ilitie s to th e u tm o s t in p r o c e s s in g m a te r ia l to a g r e a t d e p th , w h e r e a s a s u r fa c e - p r o c e s s in g str a te g y m a y in v o lv e th e u se o f th e s a m e a b ili­ tie s, b u t to p r o c e s s m a te r ia l to b e le a r n e d in a m o r e s u p e r fic ia l w ay ( M a r to n & B o o t h , 1 9 9 7 ) . In y e t a n o t h e r th eo ry , a p e r so n w ith a le g isla tiv e sty le lik es to u se h is o r h e r a b ilitie s to g e n e r a t e n ew id e a s, w h e r e a s a p e r so n w ith a ju d i ­ c ia l sty le p r e fe rs to u se h is o r h er a b ilitie s to a n a ly z e e x is tin g id e a s ( S t e r n ­ b e rg , 1 9 9 7 ) . R e s e a r c h sty le s h a s in d ic a t e d th a t sty le s a c c o u n t fo r in d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s in p e r fo r m a n c e th a t g o w ell b e y o n d a b ilitie s. T h e o r y a n d r e se a r c h o n sty le s w e n t o u t o f fa sh io n for a n u m b e r o f y e a rs. S e v e r a l r e a s o n s c o n tr ib u te d to th is la p s e o f in te r e s t (se e S t e r n b e r g & G r ig o r e n k o , 1 9 9 7 ). F irst, so m e o f th e e arly th e o r ie s p r e s e n te d sty le s th a t w ere n o t cle a rly d is tin g u is h a b le fro m a b ilitie s, o n th e o n e h a n d , o r p e r s o n a l­ ity, o n th e o th e r. S e c o n d , m a n y o f th e e arly th e o r ie s w ere o f is o la t e d sty le s th a t m a d e little c o n t a c t w ith o th e r p s y c h o lo g ic a l lite r a tu r e . T h ir d , th e q u a l ­ ity o f so m e o f th e e arly e m p ir ic a l r e se a r c h w as v a r ia b le . B u t sty le s h a v e r e e m e r g e d as a n a r e a o f in te r e s t b e c a u s e n ew th e o r ie s b e tte r d iffe r e n tia te sty le s fro m a b ilitie s a n d m a k e m o re c o n t a c t w ith th e o th e r p sy c h o lo g ic a l lit­ e r a tu r e . R e c e n t r e s e a r c h is a lso , in m a n y c a s e s , m o r e c a r e fu l a n d c o n c lu s iv e th a n so m e o f th e o ld e r r e se a r c h . S t y le s a r e o f in te r e s t to e d u c a t o r s b e c a u s e th e y p r e d ic t a c a d e m ic p e r fo r ­ m a n c e in w a y s th a t g o b e y o n d a b ilitie s ( M a r to n & B o o t h , 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e y are a lso o f in te r e s t b e c a u s e w h e n te a c h e r s ta k e sty le s in to a c c o u n t , th e y h e lp im p r o v e b o th in st r u c t io n a n d a s s e s s m e n t. M o r e o v e r, te a c h e r s w h o ta k e sty le s in to a c c o u n t c a n sh o w se n sitiv ity to c u ltu r a l a n d in d iv id u a l d iv e r sity th a t is so o fte n a b s e n t in th e c la s s r o o m . F o r e x a m p le , th e r e is q u a n t it a t iv e e v id e n c e th a t te a c h e r s te n d to th in k stu d e n ts a r c b e tte r m a tc h e s to th e ir o w n sty le s th a n th e s tu d e n ts really a r c . P e rh a p s a s c o n s e q u e n c e , th e t e a c h e r s e v a lu a t e m o re p o sitiv e ly s tu d e n ts w h o m a tc h th e ir o w n sty le o f th in k in g , r e g a r d le s s o f th e s t u d e n t s ’ a b ilitie s or a c h ie v e m e n ts . It a lso h a s b e e n fo u n d th a t sty le s p r e d ic t a c a d e m ic su c c e s s in c r e m e n ta lly b e tte r th a n d o a b ility t e s ts (G r ig o r e n k o & S t e r n b e r g , 1 9 9 7 ); S t e r n b e r g , 1 9 9 7 ; S t e r n b e r g & G r ig o r e n k o , 1 9 9 5 ). O u r st u d e n t p o p u la t io n s are m o r e d iv e r se th a n e v e r b e fo r e , so th e issu e o f th in k in g a n d le a r n in g sty le s h a s b e c o m e im p o r ta n t a s it n e v e r h a s b e e n b e ­ fo re . W h a t c a n w e d o in th e fa c e o f s u c h d iv e r sity to m a in ta in th e q u a lity o f th e e d u c a t io n w e p ro v id e stu d e n ts? O n e th in g w e c a n d o is to ta k e in to a c ­ c o u n t s t u d e n t s ’ d iv e rse sty les o f th in k in g a n d learn in g . A lt h o u g h sty le s are p rim a rily o f in te r e s t in e d u c a t io n , th ey a re a lso o f g r e a t in te r e s t in b u s in e s s , a n d th e M y e r s-B r ig g s T y p e In d ic a to r (M y e r s & M c C a u lle y , 1 9 8 5 ) is o n e o f th e le a d in g te s ts u se d in b u s in e s s for s e le c tio n a n d p la c e m e n t.

ix

PREFACE

To p r e p a r e th is b o o k , w e a s k e d le a d in g w o rld w id e e x p e r t s in th e fie ld o f sty le s to c o n tr ib u te c h a p t e r s o n th e to p ic s o f th in k in g , le a r n in g , a n d c o g n i­ tiv e sty le s. W e h a d a n o v e r w h e lm in g ly p o sitiv e r e s p o n s e , e n a b lin g us to b rin g to g e th e r th e le a d e r s in th is fie ld . W e a sk e d o n ly p e o p le w h o h a v e c o n ­ tr ib u te d se r io u s th e o r y a n d p u b lis h e d e m p ir ic a l d a t a , o r b o th , n o t in d iv id u ­ a ls w h o se w o rk is p rim a rily c o m m e r c ia l, o r w h o im p le m e n t th e th e o r ie s o f o th e r s b u t w h o h a v e n o t p r o p o s e d th e o r ie s o r c o lle c t e d d a t a o f th e ir o w n . W e h a v e a lso s o u g h t a n d a c h ie v e d in te r n a t io n a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n so a s to in ­ c lu d e m a n y o f th e m a jo r le a d e r s in th e fie ld o f sty le s. T h e g o a l o f th is b o o k is to p r e se n t th e m o st r e c e n t th e o r y a n d r e se a r c h o n sty le s in a w ay th a t (a) r e p r e s e n ts d iv e r se th e o r e t ic a l p e r s p e c tiv e s , (b) in ­ c lu d e s so lid e m p ir ic a l e v id e n c e te s tin g th e v a lid ity o f th e s e p e r s p e c tiv e s , a n d (c) sh o w s th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e se p e r sp e c tiv e s to sc h o o l as w ell a s s itu a ­ tio n s in v o lv in g o th e r k in d s o f o rg a n iz a tio n s. T h e b o o k w ill b e o f in te r e s t, w e b e lie v e , to d iv e r se a u d ie n c e s . E d u c a to r s w ill b e in te r e s te d in th e b o o k fo r id e a s as to h ow to im p r o v e th e ir te a c h in g a n d a s s e s s m e n t o f s tu d e n t p e r fo r m a n c e . P sy c h o lo g is ts w ill b e in te r e s te d in th e b o o k b e c a u s e it r e p r e s e n ts a n im p o r ta n t a r e a o f p sy c h o lo g y a t th e in te r ­ fa c e o f c o g n it io n a n d p e r so n a lity . It is a n a r e a th a t h a s in te r e s te d p s y c h o lo ­ g ists n o t o n ly in th e s e tw o fie ld s, b u t in th e fie ld s o f e d u c a t io n a l p sy ch o lo g y , in d u str ia l a n d o r g a n iz a t io n a l p sy ch o lo g y , c lin ic a l p sy c h o lo g y , c o n s u ltin g p sy c h o lo g y , a n d d e v e lo p m e n ta l p sy ch o lo g y . M a n a g e r s in b u sin e ss m ay b e in ­ te r e s te d in th e b o o k b e c a u s e it w ill b e r e le v a n t to th e issu e o f e ffe c tiv e s u p e r ­ v isio n . A n d lay p e o p le m ay b e in te r e s te d in le a r n in g m o r e a b o u t th e ir ow n sty le s a n d h o w th e s e sty le s a ffe c t th e ir liv e s.

ACKNO VVLED GMENTS W e are g r a te fu l to S a i D u r v a s u la for h er a s s is t a n c e in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f th e m a n u sc r ip t a n d to G r a n t R 2 0 6 R 9 5 0 0 0 1 from th e U n ite d S t a t e s O ffic e o f E d ­ u c a tio n a l R e s e a r c h a n d Im p r o v e m e n t, U .S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a tio n , w h ich h a s fu n d e d R o b e r t S t e r n b e r g ’s w ork o n sty le s. T h e fin d in g s a n d o p in io n s e x ­ p r e sse d in th is b o o k d o n o t r e fle c t th e p o sitio n s or p o lic e s o f th a t ag en cy . — Robert Stern berg — L i-fan g Z han g

REFERENCES G r i g o r e n k o , E. L ., & S t e r n b e r g , R . J. ( 1 9 9 7 ) . S t y l e s o f t h in k in g , a b il it ie s, a n d a c a ­ d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e . E xce p tio n al C h ildren , 6 3 , 2 9 5 - 3 1 2 . M a r t o n , E , & B o o t h , S . A . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . L ea rn in g a n d a w are n e ss. M a h w a h , N J : L a w ­ rence E rlbaum A sso c iate s.

X

PREFACE

Myers, I. B., & M cC a u lle y , M. H. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . M an u al: A guide to the development and us o f the M yers-Briggs type indicator. Palo A lt o , C A : C o n s u lt in g Psychologists Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1 9 97). Thinking styles. N e w York: C a m b rid g e Unive rsity Press. Sternberg, R. J., Gr igor en ko, E. L. ( 1 9 95). Style o f thin king in school. European Jo u r­ nal o f High Ability, 6 ( 2 ), 1- 18 Sternberg, R. J., &. Gr ig or en ko, E. L. ( 1 997). A r c cognitive styles still in style? A m er­ ican Psychologist, 5 2 , 7 0 0 - 7 1 2 . Witkin, H. A . , Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., G o o d e n o u g h , D . R . , & K a r p , S . A . ( 1 9 6 2 ) . Psychological differentiation. N e w York: Wiley.

1 A Capsule History of Theory and Research on Styles Robert J. Sternberg Yale University Elena L. Grigorenko Yale University and Moscow State University

M ost m athem aticians would m ake lousy accountants. But why? Do they lack m athem atical ability? O bviously not. For the m ost part, they are at or near the top o f the scale on any test o f m athem atical ability that anyone can com e up with. M oreover, they were able to becom e m athem aticians only by virtue o f high levels o f achievem ent in m athem atics, so they are not people whose abilities simply go unrealized. Rather, they seem to differ stylistically from accountants in m ajor ways. T h e kinds o f problems they like to work on are completely different. For exam ple, few m athem aticians would want to learn tax codes, but few accountants would w'ant to spend their time doing m athem atical proofs. A ccountan ts and m athem aticians may or may not have the abilities to do each others’ jobs; what is clear is that stylistically, the requirem ents o f the jobs are worlds apart. Interest in the notion o f styles developed in part as a response to the recognition that conventional ability tests provide only part o f the answer to why people differ in their perform ance, w hether that kind o f perform ­ ance is in m athem atics or som ething else. If abilities are only part o f the answer to understanding how and why people differ in their perform ance, what m ight the rest o f the answer be?

1

2

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

O ne possibility, o f course, would be personality. Som eone with personal difficulties m ight well be at risk for various kinds o f perform ances, in school or on the job. But personality has not seem ed to be the entire answer either. For exam ple, two people might be equally conscientious, but find they want to be conscientious in different dom ains and in different ways. Theorists interested in styles have sought an answer at the interface between abilities, on the one hand, and personality, on the other. M ore and more, people are recognizing the im portance o f this interface. Th e concept o f em otional intelligence is one exam ple o f this interface. T h e concept o f social intelligence is another. In the case o f styles, though, we believe it is im portant to m aintain the distinction between abilities and styles. Em otional intelligence may or may not represent a set o f abilities. Styles do not represent a set o f abilities, but rather a set o f preferences. T h e distinction is im portant because abilities and preferences may or may not correspond, as we find in the case o f som eone who wants to be a creative writer but who just can ’t com e up with the ideas. If we want to start with an understanding o f the work that has been done on styles, perhaps as good a place as any to start is the dictionary. A ccording to Webster’s Dictionary (1967), “A style is a distinctive or characteristic m a n n e r. . . or m ethod o f acting or perform ing" (p. 873). In psychology, the idea o f style was formally introduced by A llport (1937) when he referred to style as a m eans o f identifying distinctive personality types or types o f behavior. A llport’s understanding o f styles was rooted in Ju n g’s (1923) theory o f psychological types. Since A llport’s time, the term has been modified and imbued with different m eanings, but the core definition o f style-that is, its reference to habitual patterns or preferred ways o f doing som ething (e.g., thinking, learning, teaching) that are consistent over long periods o f time and across many areas o f activity— rem ains virtually the sam e. T h e more specific term, cognitive style, refers to an individual’s way of processing inform ation. T h e term was developed by cognitive psychologists conducting research into problem solving and sensory and perceptual abilities. T h is research provided som e o f the first evidence for the existence of distinctive styles. M ore recently, attention has turned to styles in learning and teaching. Goldm an (1972), for exam ple, classified studen ts’ study practices into two styles: “logical" and “ m nem onic.” Reissm an (1964) also argued for the concept o f styles in learning, defining a learning style as a “more wholistic (molar) or global dim ension of learning operative at the phenom enal level" (p. 485). But support for the notion o f styles has not been limited to cognitive psychology. T h e broad and flexible nature o f the concept o f style has m ade

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

3

it attractive to researchers in widely differing areas o f psychology and related fields. For exam ple, Conway (1992), in discussing the philosophy of science, stated that philosophical differences am ong psychologists may be related to individual differences in their personality factors and cogni­ tive styles. Fortunately, the increasing volum e o f published m aterial on styles has included a num ber o f excellent review papers. V ernon (1973) exam ined the historical roots o f cognitive styles in early 20th-century Germ an typological theories and then critically analyzed contem porary approaches. Bieri (1971), G oldstein and Blackm an (1978), and Kagan and Kogan (1970) considered the diverse theoretical orientations that have distin­ guished the cognitive style dom ain. Kogan (1976) offered a review o f research on cognitive styles from the point o f view o f their im plications for intellectual functioning and academ ic achievem ent. W ardell and Royce (1978) analyzed problems related to the definition o f style in the current literature. A lthough there is fairly extensive disagreem ent throughout these re­ views on preferred approaches to and m easurem ent o f styles, there is considerable agreem ent as to the em pirical and conceptual problems related to the concept o f style (e.g., G oldstein & Blackm an, 1978; Kogan, 1976; W ardcll & Roycc, 1978). T h e m ost often-m entioned em pirical problems is that o f the em pirical generalizability o f findings. M ost findings in the field appear to be “instru­ m ent boun d.” In other words, whatever is m easured by a particular test or questionnaire is called a “style o f . . . , ” and there are only a few exam ples in the literature o f replications in which the sam e latent constructs have been studied with m easures created by different authors. T h e conceptual problems stem from difficulties related to defining style as a theoretical construct. Specifically, there arc two crucial issues in constructing such a definition. T h e first is related to differentiation between the concepts o f styles and strategies (Luchins & Luchins, 1970). Each concept has different theoretical foundations and encom passes func­ tional differences. C ognitive styles are adaptive control m echanism s o f the ego that m ediate between needs and the external environm ent (W allach & Kogan, 1965). “Strategies” usually imply operations followed to minimize error during the decision-m aking process. A t a basic level styles and strategies can be distinguished by the “degree o f consciousn ess” involved. Styles operate without individual awareness, whereas strategies involve a conscious choice o f alternatives. T h e two terms are used interchangeably by som e authors (Cronbach & S n o w , 1977), but, in general, strategy is used for task- or context-dependent situations, whereas style implies a higher degree o f stability falling midway between ability and strategy.

4

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

T h e second issue is related to the nature o f styles them selves. Many theorists locate styles at the interface o f intelligence and personality, in a sense placing them in both dom ains, but there are exceptions. G ustafson and Kallen (1989), for exam ple, distinguished cognitive styles from person­ ality styles, and Myers (1988) referred to a hierarchy o f styles o f cognition (e.g., perceptual, verbal, and cognitive styles) and assum ed personality is a source o f individual variability within styles. A s noted, m uch o f this confusion is due to the nature o f styles, because although styles have been viewed primarily in the context o f cognition, as cognitive styles they have always included a heavy elem ent o f affect. In the 1970s, the concept o f style was further developed as it gained popularity am ong educators. A s a result, the notion o f styles developed in two directions through research in educational and vocational psychology. Th e first direction was primarily one o f application. Investigators attem pted to apply traditional cognitive styles to school settings, seeking explanations for stu den ts’ individual differences in achievem ent and perform ance via styles. T h e second direction was an effort to create new frameworks for studying learning and teaching styles based on empirical observations rather than theoretical background. These researchers produced several dom ain-specific theories o f styles, including theories o f learning styles (Dunn &. Dunn, 1978; Gregorc, 1979, 1985; Renzulli &. Sm ith, 1978), teaching styles (Fischer & Fischer, 1979), and even styles relevant to choosing career opportunities (H olland, 1973). Styles have received m uch less attention than they deserve, given their im portance to people’s functioning. Both successes and failures that have been attributed to abilities are often due to styles. W e should give styles their proper due, if only because preferences can be so m uch easier to mold than abilities. S o what have theorists and researchers learned about styles?

COGNITION-CENTERED ST Y L E S: THE COGNITIVE ST Y L E S MOVEMENT A m ovem ent cam e into prominence in the 1950s and early 1960s with the idea that styles could provide a bridge between the study o f cognition (e.g., how we perceive, how we learn, how we think) and the study o f personality. A small group o f experim ental psychologists set out to explore and describe individual differences in cognitive functioning (for more history o f the field, see C an tor & Kihlstrom , 1987; Kagan & Kogan, 1970). Collectively, these efforts led to a school o f thought in cognitive psychology, designated the “new look,” which developed several stylistic constructs, all o f which seem ed closer to cognition than to personality.

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

5

Field D ep en d en ce-F ield In depen den ce Did you ever notice that some people seem to be able to find objects that are temporarily m isplaced, whereas others cannot? O ne person can be looking right at m issing earrings, for exam ple, and the earrings seem to blend in with the table on which they are lying. A nother person immediately sees the earrings against the background o f the table. In general, the first type o f person can not see inconspicuous things right in front o f his or her nose, whereas the second type o f person can sec them. In a war, it may well pay off for an infantryman to be the second kind o f person, if he wants to distinguish the enem y’s cam ouflage from the background. But at other times, such as in appreciating a painting, noticing things sticking out from their background may be a nuisance. Ju st what is the difference between the two kinds o f people and how they perceive things? W itkin (1973) suggested that people could be categorized in terms o f the degree to which they are dependent on the structure o f the prevailing visual field. Som e people are highly dependent on this field; others arc not. T h e kind o f person who is more field independent is the person who, when on an airplane, can sense whether the plane is level with the ground or flying at an angle, w ithout looking down at the ground; the fielddependent person needs to look out the window to figure out the plane’s orientation relative to the ground. T he field-independent person also can look at a com plex drawing and find em bedded within it a figure or a shape, such as a hidden triangle. T he field-dependent person has more trouble separating the hidden form from its surrounding context. Thus, the fieldindependent person is the one who sees the earrings as standing out from the table, and the enem y’s cam ouflage against its natural background. W itkin and his colleagues actually developed two m ajor tests o f field independence-dependence, m easuring the construct in m uch the ways described earlier. T h e two tests are different both with respect to the way in which they are given and with respect to what the test taker needs to do. In the Rod and Frame Test (R FT ; W itkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962), the individual m ust ignore a visual contcxt to locate a true vertical. In particular, a rod m ust be oriented vertically to the ground rather than to a frame that is situated at an angle to the ground. Because the room is dark except for the lighted frame and rod, and because the person is seated at the sam e angle as the frame, the person cannot use the ground as a visual co ntext cue. Th us, the person must ignore the distracting context (field) o f the frame to locate the rod properly relative to the true vertical. In the Embedded Figures Test (E FT ; W itkin, O ltm an, Raskin, & Karp, 1971), the test taker m ust locate a previously seen simple figure within a

6

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

larger, more com plex figure that has been designed to obscure or em bed the simpler figure. T h is is a test-like analogue o f the situations involving the earrings and the cam ouflage. T h e field-independent person is able to locate the true vertical, despite the position o f the fram e, and the em bedded figures. T h e field-dependent person has more trouble with these tasks, presumably because he or she experiences the field o f vision as more fused, so that it is difficult to separate one particular object from the field in which it is placed. Is the style of field independence versus field dependence a style, or is it an ability.7 For a construct to be classified as a style, it has to be distinct from an ability. If styles and abilities am ount to the sam e thing, the construct o f a style would be superfluous. T h e research o f W itkin and his colleagues suggested their m easures are different in what they m easure from verbal abilities, as m easured by a standard intelligence test, but there docs appear to be a confounding with abilities. O ne becom es suspicious o f the relation between a style and an ability when one o f two com plem entary styles always seem s to be better. A s m entioned earlier, one style may be better than another in a given situation, but on average, styles should not be better or worse, but rather differentially good fits to different environm ents. In the case o f field dependence and field independence, field indepen­ dence alm ost always seem s to be the preferable style. You are certainly better off if you can orient yourself in a given environm ent: It’s hard to imagine a situation in which you would be at a disadvantage in having better orientation. If you are an airplane pilot, you want better orientation for sure! Similarly, you are likely to be better off if you can find things that blend in the environm ent, w hether they are keys lost in the house, earrings that fell onto the ground, or the proverbial needle in the haystack, for that m atter. If one so-called style is always better, then the style seem s to have the properties o f an ability rather than o f a style. Finally, the tests used to m easure field depen dence-indepen dence have the whiff o f ability tests: There are right and wrong answers, and the “difficulty” o f an item can be com puted as a function o f the number o f problems the test taker answers correctly. It certainly sounds like an ability! In fact, the preponderance o f the d ata support this interpretation. A review o f 20 studies (G oldstein & Blackm an, 1978) suggested that field independence is consistently correlated with both verbal and perform ­ ance aspects o f intelligence, and that the correlations are m oderate (.40 to .60 on a scale where 0 is low, indicating no relation, and 1 is high, indicating a perfect relation). M acLeod, Jackson, and Palmer (1986) provided evi­ dence that field independence is essentially indistinguishable from spatial

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

7

ability— the kind o f ability you need to rotate objects mentally in your head, to find your way around a new town, or to fit the suitcases into the trunk of your car. In an attem pt to differentiate field depen dence-indepen dence from fluid intelligence, researchers investigated heritability (i.e., the proportion o f genetic variance in the overall phenotypic variance) o f this cognitive style (Del Miglieo, Paluzzi, Falanga, & Talii, 1996; Egorova, 1987; Grigorenko, LaB uda, & Carter, 1992). O verall, the estim ates were about 50%, that is, virtually identical to the estim ates researchers have obtained for heritability o f intelligence (e.g., Plomin &. Petrill, 1997). Given high correlations between field d cpendencc-independencc and intelligence, it is plausible that a significant portion o f the genetic variance in field dcpcn d cn ccindependence (up to 60% ; Bergm an, N orlin, Borg, & Fyro, 1975) is explainable by genetic variation in intelligence. Thus, the preponderance o f evidence at this point suggests that field independence is tantam ount to fluid intelligence.

E q u ivalen ce R an ge Som e people tend to see things that are different as alm ost alike; other people see things that are similar as very different. Several nam es have been given to describe this difference in categorizing behavior (Bruner, Goodnow, &. Austin, 1956; Gardner, 1953; G ardner S iS c h o e n , 1962). O ne nam e, the one we use here, is equivalence range. A nother is leveling (seeing things as similar) versus sharpening (seeing things as different), and still another is conceptual differentiation (narrow versus wide). Som e people tend to have a relatively broad equivalence range, whereas others may have a narrower equivalence range. T h e advantage o f having a broad equivalence range is seeing things as related where other people might not see the relation; the disadvantage is not seeing im portant differences that distinguish one thing from another. T h e Free Sorting Test (Gardner, 1953) has been used to m easure equivalence range. In the test, people are given the nam es o f 73 comm on objects and arc instructed to sort into groups the objects that seem to belong together. O bjects that do not seem to belong with any others can be placed into groups by them selves. T h e su bject’s score is the total number o f groups formed, with lower scores implying broader equivalence range and higher scores implying narrower equivalence range. O ther scores can be derived as well. T h e equivalence range construct seem s to be a legitim ate style, so long as it is used to m easure preference rather than ability. Virtually all psycholo-

8

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R EN K O

g ists b e liev e th a t as p eo p le grow o ld e r an d b e co m e co gn itiv ely m ore m atu re , th eir ability to m a k e d iffe re n tiatio n s in c reases. F o r e x am p le , w h at is a “ d o g g ie " to a very y ou n g ch ild m ay in clu d e n o t only d o g s, b u t also c a ts an d o th e r sm all d o m e stic a te d an im als. M o reo v er, as p eo p le b e co m e e x p e rt in an area, th ey c a n m ak e d istin c ­ tion s th a t th ey co u ld n o t m ak e b efore. F or e x am p le , w h at w ou ld all ap p e ar to be w ildflow ers to a n o v ic e w ou ld a p p e a r as a w ide variety o f d ifferen t types o f w ildflow ers to an e x p e rt; sim ilarly, w h at w ou ld look like any old ch e ss p o sitio n to a n o v ic e w ou ld likely be a sp e cific an d n a m e a b le c h e ss p o sitio n to an e x p e rt. T h u s, e q u iv a le n c e ran ge a p p e a rs to be a style so lo n g as it m e a su re s p refe re n ce rath er th an so m e k in d o f c o g n itiv e co m p lex ity .

C a te g o r y W idth W h a t is th e ran ge in a m o u n ts o f an n u a l rain fall o v e r ten y ears? Flow ab o u t th e ran ge in th e w id th s o f w indow s in c o lo n ia l h o u ses? Flow a b o u t th e ran ge in th e le n g th s o f w h ales? N o o n e is likely to know the an sw ers to any o f th ese o r sim ilar q u e stio n s. B u t to a th eo rist o f co g n itiv e sty les, the acc u rac y o f re sp o n se s is n o t w h at is a t issu e, anyw ay. R ath e r, w h at is o f in te rest is the b re a d th o f th e ra n g e s p ro p o sed for v a rio u s o b je c ts, su ch as w indow s an d w h ales. W h e n p eo p le are ask e d to e stim a te ran ge s, so m e o f th em c o n sis­ ten tly ten d to give b ro ad e stim a te s, w h ereas o th e rs g iv e n arrow e stim a te s. T h e ten d en cy to e stim a te h igh o r low is u sed as an e stim a te o f c a te g o ­ ry w idth . Item s su ch as th ose ju st described are foun d o n the C -W Scale (Pettigrew , 1 9 5 8 ), w h ich is a m easu re o f categ o ry w idth. T h e id ea is to m easu re the e x te n t to w h ich p eo p le ten d to see c a te g o rie s as b e in g relativ ely b ro ad e r or relativ ely narrow er. P eo p le are n o t w holly c o n siste n t in th eir categ o ry w idth, as w ou ld be e x p e c te d , b e c a u se sty les c a n vary ac ro ss ta sk s an d situ a tio n s. T h u s, tim e a n d th e e m o tio n a l c o n d itio n o f th e in d iv id u al c a n affec t th e re sp o n se s the in d iv id u a l m a k e s. B u t o ften the c o n siste n c ie s are m ore salien t th an the d ifferen ces. C a te g o ry w id th h a s p articu larly in te restin g im p licatio n s w h en o n e g o es b ey o n d e stim a te s o f ran g e s o f le n g th s o f p h y sical o b je c ts to e stim a te s o f ran ge s o f p sy ch o lo g ical v ariatio n . F o r e x a m p le , w h at is th e ran ge o f Scholastic A ssessm ent T est ( S A T ) sc o re s at th e U n iv ersity o f V e rm o n t; how a b o u t a t th e U n iv ersity o f F lo rid a; at Y ale? P erh ap s e v e n m ore in te restin g w ou ld be th e possib ility th a t p eo p le w ith b ro ad e r categ o ry w id th s n o t only p erce iv e w ider v aria tio n , b u t also p erce iv e w ider v a ria tio n as p erm issib le; for e x a m p le , th ey b e liev e th a t stu d e n ts w ith a w ider ran ge o f S A T sc o re s

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

9

could do the work at the University o f V erm ont, the University o f Florida, or Yale. T h is aspect o f category width bears investigation.

C on ceptual Style O f the following three things, which two best go together: whale, shark, tiger? W hich two o f the following three best go together: airplane, bird, train? Obviously, there is no right answer to quiz questions like these. K agan, M oss, and Sigel’s (1963) Conceptual Style Test (C S T ) is supposed to m easure not right answers, but rather one o f three “conceptual styles.” T h e difference between the test and the rendition here is that we use words to describe objects, whereas the test uses pictures. People with an analytic-descriptive style tend to group together pictures on the basis o f com m on elem ents (e.g., airplane and bird because they both have wings, or two people who both are wearing socks). People with a relational style tend to group things together because o f functional, thematic relations (e.g., both whales and sharks swim). People with an inferentialcategorical style tend to group objects together because o f an abstract similarity that can be inferred but usually not directly observed in the picture (e.g., that both a whale and a tiger are m am m als). A s a m easure, the C S T is probably confounded with abilities. Indeed, in m ost theories o f cognitive developm ent, inferential-categorical thinking, as defined here, is seen as more sophisticated than is relational thinking, which is in turn seen as more sophisticated than is the analytic-descrip­ tive style. For exam ple, on the vocabulary tests o f the W echsler or the Stan fo rd Binet intelligence scales, more credit is given for a categorical than for a functional definition. Thus, a child who defines an autom obile as a vehicle o f conveyance will receive more credit than will one who defines the autom obile as som ething that uses gasoline. Similarly, in the theory o f Piaget (1972), a child is viewed as cognitively more advanced if he or she can use form al operations (logical thinking) than if he or she can only see concrete relations between things o f the kind required by, say, the descrip­ tive style.

C ognitive C ontrols Klein (1951, 1954) introduced the term cognitive control to refer to a hypothetical construct that directs the expression o f need in socially acceptable ways, as required by the situation. G ardner and Long (1962) noted that cognitive controls were conceived within the framework o f

1G

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

psychoanalytic ego psychology. A ccording to the authors, controls are viewed as enduring cognitive structures that emerge in the course of developm ent from the interaction o f genetics and experience. T h e evolution o f terms used to denote this set o f styles parallels the evolution o f the construct itself. G ardner (1962) noted that, in early work, Klein and his associates used the term perceptual attitudes. This term was later replaced by the terms cognitive attitudes and cognitive system principles. T h e terms cognitive controls and cognitive control principles were then adopted to denote the idea that a delaying, controlling function was involved in cognition. G ardner, Jackson, and M essick (1960) differentiated cognitive controls from cognitive style. A ccording to these authors, the former term refers to the specific dim ensions, including leveling-sharpening, scanning, field articulation, conceptual differentiation, and constricted-flexible control. In contrast, cognitive style refers to the organization o f these dim ensions within an individual. However, as Kagan and K ogan (1970) noted, the distinction between cognitive control and cognitive style has not been strictly adhered to by other researchers investigating these concepts.

Reflection-Im pulsivity Do you rem em ber when, as a child, you had to solve rows or even pages of arithm etic problems as fast as you could? T h e idea was to burn the arithm etic facts into your mind so you would never forget them. O r did you ever take a keyboarding class and have timed typing exercises? In both these situations, the com m on elem ent is that you had more to do than you could do well in the time that was allotted. T h is kind o f situation leaves you with a choice: Should you com plete less o f the task, but do what you do flawlessly? O r should you com plete as m uch as you can, recognizing that you will m ake errors? K agan (1966) pointed out that people tend to have a fairly consistent style on tasks like these. Kagan called the style impulsivity-reflectivity. T h e impulsive person com pletes a lot o f the task, but allows him self or herself to m ake m istakes. T h e reflective person com pletes less o f the task, but is more careful not to m ake m istakes in what he or she com pletes. T h e individual usually does not m ake a conscious choice; he or she does what feels natural. Som e students rush so much in their keyboarding com petitions that they m ake a trem endous number o f m istakes, even though their total word count is high. Similarly, some students rush to arrive to the solution o f an interesting m ath problem, but end up m aking simple com putational errors along the way.

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

T h e test m ost frequently used to measure impulsivity versus reflectivity, the Matc/ung Familiar Figures Test (M F F T ), requires people to select, from am ong several alternatives, the picture that exactly m atches a standard picture (Block, Block, & H arrington, 1974; Butter, 1979; K agan, 1966). T e st takers are m easured both for how quickly they finish the test and for the num ber o f errors they make. T h e rationale o f the M F F T is that impulsive people will tend to com plete many problems, but with a relatively high error rate; reflective people will tend to com plete fewer problems, but with a relatively low error rate. Tw o other categories o f scorers, o f less interest to cognitive styles researchers, arc those who finish many items accurately (who are labeled as quick) and those who finish few items but m ake a lot o f errors nevertheless (who are labeled as slow (Eska &. Black, 1971). T h is test, like the EFT, has the feeling o f an ability test, and its content is practically identical to that found on certain tests o f perceptual-m otor or clerical ability. W hat distinguishes this test from the abilities tests is the type o f d ata o f interest. H ere, the investigator is interested in the pattern o f response times versus error rates, and he or she looks only at people who trade off accuracy for speed in one way or another. T h e quick and slow people are not exhibiting a cognitive style at all, but rather a skill. W hether the sam e test is well used when it m easures both abilities and styles is an open question, but such a test seem s on its face to be nonideal. A lthough there seem to be relations between im pulsivity-reflectivity and various personality attributes, the kind o f impulsivity m easured by the M F F T appears to be different from the kind o f impulsivity m easured by personality tests (Furnham & Kendall, 1986). For exam ple, one study found th at scores on the test were related to attentional deficit, but not to any o f 11 other behavioral problems, including aggressiveness, social withdrawal, and delinquency (A chenbach & Edclbrocker, 1983). Several studies o f the reflectivity-im pulsivity construct showed that it is relatively stable over time and tasks. M oreover, if one equates reflective and impulsive children for age and verbal ability, one finds that impulsive children m ake more errors in reading prose, m ake more errors o f com m is­ sion on serial recall tests (i.e., asked to recall a string o f numbers in order, they are more likely to say a number that is wrong or out of order), and more often offer incorrect solutions on problems requiring inductive reasoning or visual discrim ination. In contrast, reflective children m ake fewer errors in w ord-recognition tests, serial learning, and inductive reasoning. T h ere also seem to be personality differences between reflective and impulsive individuals. Impulsive people tend to have minimal anxiety over com m itting errors, have an orientation toward quick success rather than

12

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O REN K O

tow ard avoid in g failure, have relatively low stan d ard s for their perform ­ a n ce, h ave low m o tivation to m aster task s, and pay less atte n tio n to m on itorin g o f stim uli.

O ther C o g n itiv e S t y le s S e v era l o th er co gn itiv e styles h ave b een proposed . O n e style is compartmentalization, w hich is the e x te n t to w hich a person ten d s to co m partm en talize id eas or th ings in d iscrete categ o ries (M essick, & K ogan , 19 6 3 ). A co m p artm en talizer likes to pu t th ings in a bo x w ith a label. C o m p artm e n taliz atio n c an help people organize their w orld, but it can also resu lt in their becom in g rigid. In n eg o tiatio n s, for ex am p le, co m p artm en talizatio n often resu lts in talks th at stall. A s long as Israelis saw P alestin ian s m ore or less uniform ly as the bad guys, or P alestin ian s saw Israelis in the sam e way, n eg o tiatio n s betw een the tw o grou ps could go now here. T h e sam e w as true in the n eg o tiatio n s regarding the in d ep e n ­ d en ce o f form er republics o f Form er Y u goslavia. Y ale U n iversity an d its unions n eg o tiate every few years, and as is often in the case in such n eg otiatio n s, it is difficult for the two sides n ot to start believin g their own p osturin g. B u t as so o n as one side is co m partm en talized , it b eco m es alm ost im possible to progress tow ard solu tion s. A se co n d style is conceptual integration, w hich is a p erso n ’s ten d en cy to relate or h ook up parts or co n cep ts to e ac h oth er to m ake m eanin gful w h oles (H arvey, H u n t, & S c h ro d e r, 1961). Perry M aso n w as a co n cep tu al in tegrator, so w as S h e rlo c k H olm es, an d so are d o cto rs w ho try to put sym ptom s in to a m ean in gful p attern so they can form a diagn osis. B u t m any p eop le h ave no gre at need to m ake the parts fit togeth er. T h e y can go th rou gh their lives w ith w h at F eu erstein (1 979) called an episodic grasp o f reality, co n te n t to let different co n cep ts and even ts occu r w ith ou t co n cern for their relation to on e an oth er. N o te th at here we are talkin g ab o u t style, n ot ability. T h e q u estio n is n ot how well the person pu ts togeth er the parts, b u t how m uch he or she w ants to pu t th em togeth er. A third co gn itiv e style is tolerance for unrealistic experiences (K lein, G ard n er, & Sch lesin g er, 1962). T h is style refers to the e x te n t to w hich a person is w illing to a cc e p t and report ex p erien ces at varian ce with the c o n v en tio n al ex p erien cin g o f reality as we know it. T h is style can take several o f co n crcte form s. F or ex am p le, som e peop le with this style would w elcom e the effects o f an h allu cin atory drug, w hereas o th er peop le, low in this style, w ould beg off. S o m e peop le eagerly em b race virtual-reality e x p erien ces th at plug them into a world o f fan tasy dim en sion s, w h ereas oth er p eop le h ave n o use for su ch ex p erien ces.

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

13

Finally, a fourth additional style is scanning, which, according to Gardner and M oriarty (1968), is the extent to which an individual attem pts to verify the judgm ents he or she makes. Scanning, as defined by G ardner and Moriarty, is a style rather than an ability— it refers to seeking verification, not to the quality o f verification. But this is a case where a high score on a m easure o f the style is better than a low score, so that the construct is more like an ability than m ost styles. W e all stand to gain when we verify' our judgm ents.

E valuation o f the Cognition-Centered T h eo ries T h e theories o f cognitive styles were a first attem pt, and an impressive one, to find an interface between abilities, on the one hand, and personality, on the other. Many o f the studies were done som e time ago, and it is difficult to judge earlier research by contem porary standards. Yet, today, interest in the kinds o f cognitive styles described previously has waned, and it is worth­ while to try to understand why. A t the sam e time, the theories have to be viewed in their historical co ntext and with the realization that it is much easier to criticize theories than it is to propose them. N o psychological theory is beyond criticism , even those that have had the m ost im pact on the field o f psychology. T h e m ain problem is that styles seem too close to abilities. Isn’t it alm ost always better, say, to be field independent rather than field dependent, or reflective rather than impulsive? Kogan (1973) suggested that we might be able to deal with this problem by dividing styles into three types, depending on how close they are to the abilities dom ain Type I styles are closest to the abilities dom ain and Type III are farthest away from this dom ain). But the taxonom y seems more to recognize that a problem exists than to solve the problem. W hen styles becom e like abilities, it is inevitable that one style will be viewed as better than another overall, which seem s to carry us away from the whole notion o f what a style is supposed to be about. A second problem is that the classifications o f individuals into categories som etim es seem to be arbitrary, and not cleanly dichotom ous, as some theorists suggested. People are impulsive or reflective to degrees, rather than just showing one style or the other. Investigators can place people into categories by splitting scores down the middle, but using such a split to categorize people docs not elim inate the individual differences that exist within the two groups. A third problem is the absence o f any organizing theory or model for understanding the styles in relation to each other. Each set o f styles is a separate entity unto itself, without any unifying framework that relates, say,

14

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O REN K O

field in d ep en d en ce to category w idth, or category w idth to reflectivity. In this resp ect, the literature on styles diverges from m ost psy ch ological literatu res, w here there h as b een an a tte m p t to specify a relatively m ore co m plete taxon om y, say, o f abilities or o f person ality traits.

PER SO N A LITY -CEN TER ED S T Y L E S A seco n d m o v em en t also h as atte m p ted to u n d erstan d styles, bu t in a way th at resem bles the co n cep tu alizatio n and m easu rem en t o f personality m ore th an o f co gn itio n . W e co n sid er two o f the m ain th eories.

T h e o ry o f P sy c h o lo g ic a l T y p e s T h e first theory d erives from the work o f C arl Ju n g as in terpreted by M yers an d M yers (1 9 8 0 ). In this theory, four basic distin ction s are m ad e. T h e first is with regard to o u r attitu d es in d ealin g with peop le we en cou n ter. Extraversión ch aracterizes people w ho are ou tgoin g, with an in terest in p eop le and the en v iron m en t; introversion d escrib es peop le w ho arc m ore inw ardly focu sed . T h e se co n d d istin ction is with regard to percep tu al fu n ctio n s. A n intuitive p erson perceives stim uli h olistically an d c o n c e n ­ trates on m ean in g rath er th an d etails, w h ereas a sensing p erson perceives in form ation realistically and precisely. T h e third d istin ctio n is with regard to ju d gm e n t. Thinking peop le arc logical, an aly tical, and im person al in their ju d gm e n ts; w h ereas feeling peop le are m ore orien ted tow ard v alu es and em o tio n s in their ju d gm e n ts. T h e fourth d istin ctio n is with regard to in terp retatio n o f inform ation . Perceptive peop le arc m ore d e p e n d e n t on in form ation in the en v iron m en t, w hereas judging peop le are m ore willing to go beyon d the in form ation in the en v iro n m en t to m ake in terp retatio n s. T h is theory is one o f the m ost elab o rated , in th at eac h o f the 16 co m b in atio n s o f types th at m ake up the four d istin ctio n s is alleged to produce a different overall personality type. C onsider, for exam ple, two types. Se n sin g types w ho are in troverts an d w ho show thinking w ith ju d gin g are alleged to be serious, qu iet, an d to earn su cc ess by c o n ce n tratio n and th oro u gh n ess. T h e y are believed to be practical, orderly, m atte r o f fact, realistic, an d d ep en d ab le, an d to live their o u ter life m ore with thinkin g but their inner life m ore w ith sensing. In co n trast, in tu itives w ho are ex tro v erts with th inkin g an d ju d gin g are believed to be h earty, frank, decisive, and lead ers in activities. T h e y feel real co n cern for w h at oth ers th ink an d w ant, an d try to h an d le th ings w ith regard for o th er p eo p le’s feelings. T h e y live their o u ter life m ore w ith feeling bu t their inner life m ore with intuition.

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

Styles in this theory are m easured via the M ^ers-Bnggs Type Indicator or (M BT I; Myers & M cCaulley, 1985), which is a published and widely available test that looks a lot like a personality inventory. People respond to statem ents about them selves in a way that ultimately classifies them as belonging to one category or another. T h is theory has probably been the m ost widely applied o f all o f the theories o f styles. It has been used in settings such as business and education. How valid the theory and m easure is for these purposes is open to question. A recent review o f the uses o f the test suggested the test is not valid for the purposes for which it is used.

Encrgic T heory of Mind S ty le s Gregorc (1982, 1984, 1985) suggested a different and simpler theory of styles, which is based on the notion that people differ in the ways they organize space and time. W ith regard to space, people are classified as either concrete or abstract. A s the nam es imply, concrete people prefer dealing with the physical expression o f inform ation, abstract people with more m etaphorical expression. W ith regard to time, people arc classified as either sequential or random. A sequential person likes things to be presented in a step-by-step, orderly m anner, whereas a random person likes things pre­ sented in a more haphazard way. G regorc devised a m easure o f the styles, and, like Myers, characterized what people are like who have each o f the four possible com binations of styles. For exam ple, a concrete-sequ ential person likes the ordered, the practical, and the stable. Individuals in this category focus their attention on concrete reality and physical objects, and validate ideas via the senses. In contrast, an abstract-random person prefers em otional and physical free­ dom. Individuals in this category focus their attention on the world o f feeling and em otion. They also validate ideas using inner guidance. G regorc’s (1982) m easure o f styles, the Gregorc Style Delineator, consists o f 40 words arranged in 10 sets o f 4 words, with 1 word in each set corresponding to each style. Individuals rank the 4 words from the least to the m ost descriptive o f them selves. T h e total score for each o f the 4 style subscales is the sum o f the ranking o f the 10 words com posing the subscale. Joniak and Isaksen (1988) found that despite the appeal o f G rcgorc’s fourcategory approach, there appeared to be little empirical support for their intem al-consistency reliability and construct validity. It was also shown that although the four scales m eet minimal requirem ents for factor defini­ tion and may have some practical utility, only three o f the four can be considered defensible m easurem ent m odels (O ’Brien, 1990).

16

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

E valuation o f the Personality-C entered T h eo ries T h e personality-centered theories, like the cognition-centered theories, have received various criticisms. A gain, remember that all theories can be criticized, no m atter how good or useful they are. T h e personality-based theories are more com prehensive than the cogni­ tion-based theories, but statistical analyses o f the structure underlying the data from the tests used to measure the constructs provide only mixed support for the theories. Th us, attractive though the theories may be, the validations o f their structures have not been as promising as one might have hoped. Second, just as the cognitive styles com e close to abilities, the styles in the personality-based theories come close to personality traits. Indeed, one might be hard-pressed to distinguish the M B TI from a conventional, paperand-pencil personality inventory. Third, although the theorists recognize th at styles can vary across tasks and situations, these theories tend to “type” people, as the nam e o f the M B T I suggests. Both theories describe people who are certain types and classify people into groups. Realistically, though, people can not be as easily pigeon holed as psychologists often seem to like them to be. M ost people, at least, are more flexible than psychological theories give them credit for.

ACTIVITY-CENTERED ST Y L E S A ctivity-centered theories o f styles are more action oriented than are cognitive- or personality-centered theories. They arc more centered around kinds o f activities people engage in at various points in their lives, such as schooling and work.

Learning S ty le s T heories o f learning styles deal with how people like to learn. Tw o theories are described here. Kolb (1978) proposed a theory o f learning styles that is intended primarily to apply in school settings. T h e theory comprises four basic types o f learning styles: converging, diverging, assim ilating, and accom m odating. Convergers are abstract conceptualizers and are interested in active experim entation. They like to use deductive reasoning and to focus it on specific problems. Divergers arc in som e respects the opposite. They prefer concrete experience and reflective observation, they are interested in people, and they are im aginative and em otional in their dealings with

1.

A C A P S U L E H IS T O R Y

17

things and with people. A ssim ilators are abstract co n cep tu alizes and reflective observers. They like to create theoretical models and to use inductive reasoning to assim ilate disparate observations into an integrated explanation. A ssim ilators are less interested in people than in abstract concepts. A ccom m odators like concrete experience and active experimentation, and they like to take risks. People’s styles are determ ined through the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). A nother theory o f learning styles widely used in education is the theory developed by Dunn and Dunn (1978). Dunn and D u nn’s theory includes 18 styles divided into four m ain categories: environm ental (sound, light, tem perature, design), em otional (m otivation, persistence, responsibility, structure), sociological (peers, self, pair, team, adult, varied), and physical (perceptual, intake, time, mobility). It is hard to say how the 18 styles were chosen, or even why they are called styles. They refer more to elem ents that affect a person’s ability to learn than to ways o f learning. T h e theories o f Kolb (1978) and o f Dunn and Dunn (1978) have been used primarily in the educational world. A theory proposed by H olland has been used primarily in the occupational world. This theory, which serves as the basis o f the Strong V ocational Interest Blank (SV IB ), specifies five styles that people should take into account in m aking job choices: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, and enterprising. Scores on the styles help people narrow vocational choices to those that use the people’s pre­ ferred styles.

T each in g S ty les T h e concept o f teaching styles is especially im portant in light o f the fact that different learners respond in different ways to different styles of teaching. W hat works well for one learner may not work well for another. O ne theory o f teaching styles is that o f H enson and Borthwick (1984). They suggested six styles o f teaching. In a task-oriented approach, planned tasks associated with appropriate m aterials are prescribed. In a cooperativeplanner approach, an instructional venture is planned by teachers and students collaboratively, though the teacher is in charge. In a child-centered approach, the task structure is provided by the teacher and the students choose from options according to their interests. In a subject-centered approach, the content is planned and structured to the extent that students are nearly excluded from the process. In a learning-centered approach, equal concern is shown by the teacher for both the student and the subject content. Finally, in an emotionally exciting approach, the teacher tries to

18

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

m ake his or her teaching as emotionally stim ulating as possible. T h ese styles are not m utually exclusive. They could be used in conjunction with each other and probably are m ost effective when they are so used.

Evaluation o f the Activity-Centered A p p ro a ch es Th e strength o f the activity-centered approaches is their relevance for the school setting. Yet, these approaches, like those discussed earlier, have their lim itations. First, the activity-centered framework lacks a clear definition o f style. Th us, it is difficult to find a correspondence between different approaches developed in this framework, and it is even more difficult to relate them to work outside o f the activity-centered tradition. Second, activity-centered approaches do little about the developm ent of styles. T h e fact that we can diagnose the learning style o f a student does not tell us anything about how this style was developed or if a teacher can “revise" the learning style o f a student. Cognition-centered and personali­ ty-centered theories, in contrast, do discuss the developm ent o f styles in the co ntext o f overall intellectual and personality developm ent. Finally, these approaches, unlike many o f those considered earlier, are not integrated with more general theories o f psychological functioning. The cognition-centered and personality-centered approaches are special cases o f more general psychological theories. O f course, there is no a priori reason why a theory o f styles should have to be a special case o f a more general psychological theory. A t the sam e time, it rem ains to be seen how the activity-centered approaches to styles can be related to more general theories o f psychological functioning.

SUMMING UP Interest in styles rem ains strong, at least in som e circles. T h e reason is the sense people have that styles exist, that they account for variation in perform ance not accounted for by abilities, and that they may be im portant in various real-world settings, such as the school, the workplace, and even the home. N o theory is going to answer every objection that might be lodged against it, but the theories described in this book attem pt to address at least som e o f the criticisms that have been leveled against theories o f styles in the past.

1.

A C A P S U L E H ISTO RY

19

R EFEREN CES A chenbach, T . M., & Edelbrocker, C . (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, V T : University o f Vermont. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality, a psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Bergm an, H., N orlin, B., Borg, S., & F y ro , B. (1975). Field dependence in relation to alcohol consum ption: A co-twin control study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 8 5 5-859. Bieri, J. (1971). C ognitive structures in personality. In H. M. Schroder & P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality theory and information processing (pp. 178-208). N ew York: Ronald Press. Block, J., Block, J. H., &. H arrington, D. M. (1974). Som e misgivings about the M atching Fam iliar Figures T e st as a m easure o f reflection-impulsivity. Developmental Psychology, I I , 6 1 1 -6 3 2 . Bruner, J. S., Goodnow , J., &. A ustin, G. A . (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley. Butter, E. (1979). Visual and haptic training and cross-m odal transfer o f reflectivity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 212-219. C antor, N ., & K ih lstrom , J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Conway, J. B. (1992). A world of differences am ong psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 33, 1-24. Cronbach, L. J., & S n o w , R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. N ew York: Wiley. Del Miglio, C ., Paluzzi, S., Falanga, M ., & Talli, M. (1996). Field dependence and ch aracteristics o f conceptualizatio n in identical twins. A cta Genetica? M edicae Gemellologicae, 45, 4 4 9-460. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles. Reston, V A : Reston Publishing. Egorova, M. S. (1987). G enetic factors in interpersonal variance in field depen den ceindcpendcnce indicators. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 29, 19-22. Eska, B., & Black, K. N . (1971). C onceptual tem po in young grade-school children. Child Development, 45, 505-516. Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment o f retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Furnham , M. J., & Kendall, P. C . (1986). C ognitive tem po and behavioral adjustm ent in children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 45 -5 0 . Gardner, R. \V. (1953). C ognitive style in categorizing behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22, 214 -2 3 3 . Gardner, R. W. (1962). C ognitive controls in adaptation : Research and m easurem ent. In S. M essick & J. Ross (Eds.), Measurement in personality and cognition (pp. 183-198). New York: Wiley. Gardner, R. W ., Jackson, D. N ., & M essick, S . J. (1960). Personality organization in cognitive controls and intellectual abilities. Psychological Issues, 2, 7. G ardner, R. W ., & Long, R. I. (1962). Control, defence and ccntration effect: A study of scanning behaviour. British Journal of Psycholog, 53, 129-140. G ardner, R. W ., & Moriarty, A . (1968). Dim ensions o f cognitive control at preadolesccnce. In R. G ardner (Ed.), Personality development at preadolescence (pp. 108-118). Seattle: University o f W ashington Press. Gardner, R. W ., & Schoen, R. A . (1962). D ifferentiation and abstraction in concept form ation. Psychological Monographs, 76. G oldm an, R. D. (1972). Effects o f a logical versus a m nem onic strategy on perform ance in two undergraduate psychology classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 347-352.

20

S T E R N B E R G AND G R IG O R E N K O

Goldstein, K. M., & Blackm an, S. (1978). Cognitive style. N ew York: Wiley. Gregorc, A . F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-236. Gregorc, A. F. (1982). Gregorc Style Delineator. M aynard, M A : Gabriel Systems. Gregorc, A . F. (1984). Style as a symptom. A phenom enological perspective. Theory into Practice, 23, 51 -5 5. G regorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics. M aynard, M A : G abriel Systems. G rigorenko, E. L., LaB uda, M. C ., & C arter, A . S. (1992). Similarity in general cognitive ability, creativity, and cognitive styles in a sam ple o f adolescent Russian twins. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 41, 65 -7 2 . G ustafson, R., & Kallen, H. (1989). A lcohol effects on cognitive and personality style in women with special reference ro primary and secondary process. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 13, 6 4 4-648. Harvey, O . J., H unt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961) Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley. H enson, K. T ., & Borthwick, P. (1984). M atching styles: A historical look. Theory into Practice, 23, 1, 3 -9 . H olland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Joniak, A . J., & Isakscn, S . G. (1988). T h e Gregorc Style D elineator: Internal consistency and its relationship to K irton’s adaptive-innovative distinction. Educational and Psycho­ logical Measurement, 8, 1043-1049. Jung, C. G ., (1923). Psychological types. New York: H arcourt Brace. Kagan, J . (1966). Reflection-im pulsivity: T h e generality and dynam ics o f conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-27. Kagan, J., & Kogan, N . (1970). Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P.A. M ussen (E d .), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1273-1365). New York: Wiley. Kagan, J., M oss, H . A ., & Sigel, I. E. (1963). Psychological significance o f styles of conceptualization. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Klein, G. S. (1951). T h e personal world through perception. In R. R. Blake & G . V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: An approach to personality (pp. 32 8 -3 5 5 ). New York: Ronald Press. Klein, G . S. (1954). N eed and regulation. In M. R. Jon es (Ed.), N ebraska symposium of motivation. Lincoln, N E : University' o f N ebraska Press. Klein, G. S., Gardner, R. W ., & Schlesinger, H. J. (1962). T olerance for unrealistic experience: A study o f the generality o f a cognitive control. British Journal of Psychology, 5 3 ,4 1 - 5 5 . Kogan, N . (1973). Creativity and cognitive style: A life-span perspective. In P. B. Baltes & K. W . Sch aie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and socialization (pp. 145178). New York: A cadem ic Press. Kogan, N . (1976). Cognitive styles in infancy and early childhood. New York: Wiley. Kolb, D. A . (1978). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston: M cBcr & C o. Luchins, A . S., & Luchins, E. H. (1970). Effects o f preconceptions and com m unications on impressions o f a person. Journal of Social Psychology, 81, 243-252. M acLeod, C . M ., Jackson, R. A ., & Palmer, J. (1986). O n the relation between spatial ability and field dependence. Intelligence, 10, 141-151. M essick, S., &. Kogan, N . (1963). D ifferentiation and com partm entalization in objectsorting m easures o f categorizing style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16, 47 -5 1 . Myers, I. B., & M cCaulley, M. H. (1985). M anual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo A lto, C A : C onsulting Psychologists Press.

1.

A C A P S U L E H IST O R Y

Myers, I. B. & Myers, P. B. (1980). M anual: A guide to use o f the MyerS'Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, C A : Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers, P. L. (1988). Paranoid pseudocommunity beliefs in a sect milieu. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 23, 252-255. O ’Brien, T . P. (1990). Construct validation o f the Gregorc Style Delineator: An application o f Lisrel 7. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 631-636. Pettigrew, T. F. (1958). The measurement o f category width as a cognitive variable. Journal of Personality, 26, 5 32-544. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams. Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: W hat is new? Intelligence, 24, 53-78. Reissman, F. (1964). The strategy o f style. Teachers College Record, 65, 484-489. Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). Learning styles inventory. Mansfield Center, C T : Creative Learning Press. Vernon, P. (1973). M ultivariate approaches to the study of cognitive styles. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Multivariate analysis and psychological theory (pp. 125-141). London: A cadem ­ ic Press. W allach, M., & Kogan, N . (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rinehart &. Winston. Wardell, D. M., & Royce, J. R. (1978). Toward a multi-factor theory o f styles and their relationships to cognition and affect. Journal of Personality, 46, 474-505. Webster’s semit/i new collegiate dictionary. (1967). Springfield, M A : Merriam Company. Witkin, H. A. (1973). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. Unpublished report, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley. Witkin, H. A ., Oltm an, P. K., Raskin, E., &. Karp, S. A. (1971). Embedded Figures Test, Children’s Embedded Figures Test, Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Preparation of this chapter was supported by Grant No. R206R950001 as administered by the Office o f Educational Research and Improvement, U .S. Departm ent o f Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. This chapter, therefore, docs not necessarily represent the position or policies o f the Office o f Educational Research and Improvement or the U .S. Departm ent of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

This page intentionally left blank

2 Abilities, Interests, and Styles as Aptitudes for Learning: A Person-Situation Interaction Perspective Joseph S. Renzulli University of Connecticut David Yun Dai Central Missouri State University

A ctive learning or construction o f knowledge entails inform ation process­ ing beyond passive responses to stim uli or encoding verbatim o f whatever input has been provided. It also m eans that individuals differentially and selectively attend to and process learning m aterials based on their prior knowledge, understanding, values, attitudes, styles, and resultant m otiva­ tion. Th us, active learning is m ost likely when instructional programm ing and design take into account developm ental and individual characteristics th at have a direct bearing on how students learn and how well they learn under a specific learning condition. O ur m ain argum ent is that schools will fare m uch better if they place the act o f learning at the center o f the education process (Renzulli, 1992). An act o f learning takes place when three m ajor com ponents o f instructional settings interact with one another in such a way as to produce the intellectual or artistic equivalent o f spontaneous com bustion. T h ese three com ponents are a learner, a teacher, and the m aterial to be learned (i.e., curriculum ). E ach o f these three m ajor com ponents, shown in Fig. 2.1, has its own im portant subcom ponents. Thus, for exam ple, when considering the learn­ er, we m ust look at his or her abilities and present appropriate levels of

23

24

R E N Z U L L I A N D DAI

F IG . 2.1.

Figural represen tation o f the A c t o f Learning.

challenges in a particular area of study, the learner’s interest in the topic and ways in which we can enhance his or her interests or help him or her develop new interests, and the preferred styles of learning that will improve the learner’s motivation to pursue the material being studied. Similarly, we must consider the teacher’s role in instructional techniques and the extent to which the teacher has developed a 44romance” with the material being taught. Finally, the curriculum must be examined in terms of the structure of the discipline, the content and methodology of the discipline, and the extent to which the material appeals to the imagination of the learner. At the core of this theory is the notion of dynamic persoivsituation interact tion. To facilitate our discussion, we develop a model that includes (but does not exhaust) major components of the person-situation interaction in the instructionaMearning process and desirable educational outcomes.

2.

A B IL IT IES, I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

Outer Environment • Subject/Topic • Instructional approaches • Teacher's rendition • Social dynam ics • etc.

25

Inner Environment

Interface properties • harmony/disharmony • tuned to each other/unresponsive

Prior knowledge o f subject/topic Abilities relative to task demands General attitude toward the subject 1Achievement motivation 1etc.

Positive Experiences • • • • • •

FIG. 2.2

New understanding o f the subject/topic Self-efficacy beliefs Intrinsic interest in the subject/topic T ask commitment Self-understanding (strengths & w eaknesses) Identity formation

A schem atic representation o f the person-situation interaction in the instruction-

learning process and positive experience.

A s show n in Fig. 2.2, the ou ter and inner en v iron m en ts o f the p e rso n situ atio n in te ractio n represen t a typical classroom co n d ition in which co m p o n en ts w ithin each b lock are presen t and often op erate sim u ltan e o u s­ ly and in teractively with one an other. For the co n v en ien ce o f analysis, four co m p o n en ts are specified for the ou ter en v iro n m e n t and eac h h as bearings on abilities, in terests, an d styles. Subject content and topics involved in a cu rriculu m unit d eterm in e task d em an d s an d task featu res. T ask demands co n cern the difficulty levels o f the m aterial an d co m p lexity involved . It is reason ab le to assu m e that, given a specific learn in g task, the zone o f proxim al d ev e lo p m en t in term s o f co m p e ten c e is different n ot only betw een bu t also w ithin age grou ps. T ask features in volve affective and stylistic ap p eal o f a d om ain or topic to in d ivid u al stu d en ts. D o c s a topic invite a m ore h olistic, intuitive or an

26

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

analytic, sequential approach, or is it presented in such a way that favors one approach over another? Is a topic mainly a pure intellectual gam e or does it involve rich hum an experiences and em otions? Subject content o f a topic should be exam ined under such a task analysis to elucidate its ram ifications for readiness and proneness o f a person’s inner environm ent. Although various instructional approaches such as lecture, discussion, and role playing could be incorporated to make instruction effective, not all instructional approaches benefit students in the sam e way. T h u s, given a challenging science topic, a less structured, highly involving presentation may excite highly able students but overwhelm less able students, for whom more scaffolding is needed (Snow & Lohm an, 1984). By the sam e token, a student who prefers to follow rules (executive style, if you will) will feel secure in a highly structured, less involving instructional environm ent. However, the sam e environm ent will bore another student who prefers to create his or her own rules (legislative style; Sternberg, 1997). Clearly, a one-size-fits-all instructional approach does not serve students equally well. T e ach er’s rendition refers to the way the teacher transform s content knowledge into highly accessible, exciting learning experiences for stu ­ dents. Shulm an (1986) refers to this aspect o f teaching skills as “pedagogical content know ledge," characterized by being loyal to the essential features o f the subject taught while making them accessible to students o f varied prior knowledge, m otivation, and other characteristics. Renzulli (1988) named this aspect, “ artistic m odification,’’ a personal rendition o f teaching-learning m aterials not unlike conducting a symphony or directing a play in that the text m aterial is interpreted and presented at a highly personal, intimate level. It is not hard to conceive that the sam e textbook m aterials can be turned into exciting, lively instructional-learning experiences in one teach ­ er’s hand but rem ain “d ead,” boring stuff, full o f inert knowledge in another’s (Phenix, 1987). M aking learning m aterials accessible, interest­ ing, and intellectually stim ulating is clearly no sm all feat. Social dynam ics refers to teach er-stu d ent and peer interactions that create a classroom or school culture that m akes some values and incentives more salient than others. Thus, a highly com petitive, ego-involving a ca­ dem ic environm ent may create an ethos that m akes all students sclfconscious about their relative ability and norm ative perform ance status, som etim es at the cost o f learning goals and challenge-seeking behavior (Nicholls, 1989). A n environm ent that emphasizes m eaningful learning and m utual reciprocity am ong learners is likely to prom ote a group of identity am ong students as intentional learners (Brown, 1997). Social dynam ics could also determ ine whether and to what extent studen ts’ conform ity (or intellectual independence) is encouraged.

2.

A B IL IT IE S, IN T E R E S T S . A ND S T Y L E S

27

Although presented separately, it is useful to think of these components of the outer environment as orchestrated to produce an overall instruction­ al environment, which is uniquely perceived and acted upon by each learner, with his or her unique configuration of the inner environment. The nature and quality of the person-situation interaction can be seen as a continuum with harmony on the one end and disharmony on the other. From a more dynamic perspective, the quality of the interaction depends on adaptivity of the two systems, ranging from the tendency for both the outer environment and the inner environment to tune into each other on the one end, and the tendency to remain unresponsive to, or even turn off, each other on the other end (Snow, 1992). How do we judge, then, whether the instructional environment is optimized for a group of students or for individual students? Our answer is whether the interaction produces positive experiences, some of which are listed in Fig. 2.2. An underlying proposition is that when instruction is tuned to developmental and individual differences in terms of readiness and zones of proximal development, learners are more likely to have positive experiences with school learning, which is crucial for successful mastery and learning. The essence of seeking optimal personal-situation interactions is not simply to make students feel good about themselves but to help them find their own strengths, inner resources, and passion so that school learning becomes their own personal enterprise, rather than things they have to do to meet adults’ expectations and approval. The arrow from positive experiences to the inner environment implies that positive experi­ ences change the inner environment and transform the person into someone more confident about learning, more interested in learning, and more self-directed and future oriented, as well as someone who has newly acquired knowledge, skills, and cognitive apparatus. The arrow from positive experiences to the outer environment suggests that as new experiences and changes come along, instruction needs to aim at new levels of challenges, understanding, and technical precision. Thus, the personsituation interaction becomes reciprocal and optimized. As this model suggests, cognitive and learning styles are but one of many components of the inner environment. Thus, instead of discussing exclu­ sively cognitive and learning styles, we include interests and abilities, along with styles, as central developmental and individual difference constructs. In line with Snow (1992; see also Snow, Como, &. Jackson, 1996), we use the term aptitude to refer to psychological readiness or proneness, cognitively, affectively, or conatively, for a specific learning situation. We discuss the theoretical underpinnings of these constructs and their intricate relation with one another, particularly as they are brought to bear upon instruction­ al conditions in terms of curricular materials and instructional approaches.

28

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

W e further explore stability and changes o f these learner characteristics. W e then suggest ways we might design instruction to address these individual differences to optimize learning conditions for the individual students.

FROM ABILITIES TO ST Y LE S: A Cl IANG1NG PERSPECTIVE Abilities are the m ost talked about factor considered crucial for successful learning. T h ere are many versions o f theoretical accounts o f the nature and origins o f hum an abilities (Sternberg &. Kaufm an, 1998). Three traditions stand out as responsible for our current thinking. In the first, Piaget and neo-Piagetian views provide a developm ental perspective o f how human abilities arc developed in a sequential fashion, as a result o f both m aturation and interaction with the environm ent in terms o f direct experience and social transm ission (Case, 1985; Piaget, 1967). In the second tradition, the psychom etric approach explains hum an abilities in terms o f individual differences (Carroll, 1993; Guilford, 1959). Finally, cognitive psychology attem pts to elucidate elementary processes (e.g., encoding and retrieval) and com ponents (e.g., short-term and long-term memory, executive func­ tion) involved in learning and perform ance (Newell & Sim on, 1972, Sternberg, 1985). O f the three traditions, the m ost influential in education is the psychom etric perspective on hum an abilities. T ak e the exam ple o f IQ testing, where an age-norm ed test score is interpreted as on e’s relative standing in a specific age population and is considered an indicator o f how' well a student will do com pared with age peers in the future. Problems occur when the score is interpreted as indicating som e fixed ability. Especially troublesom e is a further inference that the ability is largely genetically determ ined (H errnstein & Murray, 1994). Evidence, however, is far from supporting such a strong claim. First, the psychometric view o f human abilities exaggerates individual differences at the expense o f disguising enorm ous developm ental gains in cognitive com petence as children grow and are increasingly exposed to environm ental stimuli (Lohm an, 1993). A s M cCall (1981) pointed out, relying on the evidence o f the high correlation o f age-norm ed IQ scores over time am ounts to focusing on the consistency o f a difference o f a few inches in the heights o f trees from blossom ing to maturity while ignoring how they grow to be hundreds o f feet tall. Second, many IQ tests that are supposed to m easure natural ability are in fact m easures o f achievem ent, that is, developed or developing com pe­ tencies (A nastasi, 1980; Lohm an, 1993; Sternberg, 1998). T ests such as vocabulary, reading com prehension, and arithm etic problem solving typi­

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

29

cally found in IQ tests can be seen in part as m easures o f achievem ent. Th us, inferring the casual precedence o f natural ability from the correlation of IQ m easures and academ ic achievem ent becom es problematic. Because there has been no reliable and valid m easure o f individual differences in pure natural abilities (some doubt we will ever have one; e.g., Lohm an, 1993), all ability tests are best treated as m easures o f developed or developing com petencies. Third, the claim o f heritability o f intelligence is based heavily on genetic studies o f twins, which consistently found heritability estim ates to be between .50 to .78; that is, h alf or more than half o f the total variance in IQ scores is accounted for by genetic factors (Plomin & Petrill, 1997). Putting aside, for the m om ent, the m ethodological adequacy o f teasing apart the effects of heredity and environm ent (see Sternberg & K aufm an, 1998), the fact that a large portion o f variance rem ains unexplained by genetic factors assures us that genetics is not destiny. Rem arkable increases in IQ scores found over the generations (Flynn, 1987, 1994, 1999) have led many researchers to look into various environm ental factors for answers, such as better nutrition, m ore parental attention, and increased schooling (see Sternberg & Kaufm an, 1998, for a review). Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that intelligence may have nonintellective origins. For exam ple, the quality o f interaction between infants and their caregivers was found to be related to differences in cognitive abilities 2 years later (Lewis, 1989). Particularly illum inating is the im plication that the seemingly natural abilities assessed at the ages o f 2 and 3 years might well be the consequence o f cognitive engagem ent and environm ental exploration since infancy; the intensity o f this cognitive activity is engendered party by the caregivers and the children them selves. T here is a strong possibility that other "nonintellective” factors, such as tem peram ents (e.g., persistence, activity, and distractibility; see C hess & T h om as, 1996; T h om as &. Chess, 1977) also contribute to (or retard) the developm ent o f cognitive abilities. If the differential or psychom etric perspective o f hum an abilities docs not provide adequate explanations for successful learning and rich heuristic values for curriculum and instruction, what are the alternatives? A more promising approach is to see observed or m easured abilities o f the student from a developm ental point o f view as developed and developing com pe­ tencies. G ardner’s (1983) theory o f multiple intelligences and Sternberg’s (1985) triarchic theory o f hum an intelligence have changed the narrow view o f intelligence and hum an ability as unitary and being m anifested only in psychom etic tests. They point out that each individual is equipped with a unique set o f potentialities and strengths. T h e issue is not who has the ability and who does not, but how to capitalize on and develop these potentialities and strengths. If we accept this view, it follows that the road

30

R E N Z U L L I A N D DAI

to success may be different from individual to individual. Naturally, individual learners’ characteristic approaches to learning tasks, that is, cognitive and learning styles, rather than their general ability, become a central issue in education. Particularly interesting in the context of individual differences in cognitive abilities is the question of the relation between ability constructs and various style constructs. Lohman (1993) provided an example of how strengths and weaknesses within the person interact with instructional environments to shape one’s stylistic approach to learning tasks. He speculated that female deficits in math and science may be the cumulative effects of a relative female strength in phonologicalsequential string processing and a relative male strength in analog-image processing. Lohman (1993) explained: If young w om en generally find it easier to rem em ber form ulae than to construct m ental m odels, and if instruction is structured in a way th at m akes it possible to get good grades by doing so, and if knowledge thus assem bled becom es increasingly unwieldy over time com pared to knowledge represent­ ed in m ental m odels (as research su ggests), then som e part o f the cum ulative fem ale deficit in m ath and science and the even larger sex differences in career choice may be more a product o f the within-person pattern o f specific abilities than their absolute levels, (p. 129)

Whether this speculation can stand the test is another issue. It nevertheless provides important clues to the potential causal links of abilities and styles. From this passage, one can infer the following: 1. W ithin-person patterns o f abilities, not absolute betw een-person differ­ ences, may shape o n e’s characteristic m odes o f learning (i.e., styles) when dealing with a learning task. 2. Styles may be reinforced by instruction and evaluation. 3. T h ere is feedback control in which the learner gauges the effectiveness o f certain learning strategies and m akes adjustm ents accordingly (in other words, styles are ad ap tiv e). and 4. G iven specific learning tasks, certain styles facilitate the developm ent o f abilities; others retard the process.

All these conjectures arc in line with the person-situation interaction perspective proposed earlier. One can argue, of course, that the strengths and weaknesses in one’s abilities may be the derivative of earlier stylistic predilections (e.g., Wachtel, 1972). We may never resolve this chicken-and-egg problem. However, by looking into these intricate ability—style relationships, we can see that at least some individuals’ stylistic approaches are the result of capitalizing on

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

31

their strengths and com pensating for their weaknesses. If this argum ent holds, individual differences in cognitive and learning styles partly reflect differential responses to environm ental dem ands and different action patterns based on individuals’ strengths and weaknesses, consciously or unconsciously. T h e issue o f whether field independence-depen dence is an ability or style construct (Davis, 1991; M cK enna, 1990; M essick, 1994; Sigel, 1991) may not be that puzzling once we realize that som e latent abilities or ability configurations can turn into stylistic dispositions, and som e styles have ability ramifications. Abilities are not the only thing im portant for successful learning, and surely not the only contributing factor for the developm ent o f cognitive and learning styles. From a developm ental point o f view, a person interacts with the environm ent as a whole person, with developed and developing com petencies as both a precondition and a result o f this interaction. Thus, without appropriate consideration o f other aspects o f this dynam ic p erson environm ent interaction, we will never get a whole picture o f how styles develop. If ability—style relationships discussed above are mainly cognition based, an affective com ponent should also figure prominently in some aspects o f cognitive and thinking styles. In the following section, wc discuss an affective construct central to the m otivation and functioning o f school children: interest.

INDIVIDUAL IN TERESTS AND UNDERLYING STYLISTIC DIMENSIONS Interests may be one o f those psychological phenom ena that arc most familiar to people but least scientifically understood. Because the term is loosely used in daily language, ranging from casual to serious, transient to enduring, a more norm ative conception is needed. W e define interest as an affective leaning toward, or a preference for, certain objects, phenom ena, topics, or activities. T h is definition has three essential features. First, interests are directive or conative; that is, they display a tendency to move or be drawn toward a certain direction (Snow, 1992). Second, all interests have ccrtain degrees o f intensity. It could be indicated by behaviors to deeply engage oneself in a purposeful activity or by affective reaction and arousal such as excitem ent and enjoym ent when a specific object or activity is involved. Third, interests are dynamic; that is, they occur or m anifest them selves in a flow o f events involving pcrson -objcct interactions and relations, and therefore can be seen as a result o f person-situation interaction, as indicated in Fig. 2.2. T h u s, the nature o f a specific interest can only be understood in dynam ic person-object relations (Prenzel, 1992).

32

R E N Z U L L I A N D DAI

M any th eories seek to ex p lain w hat m ak es an activity or ob ject in te rest­ ing. S o m e topics, su ch as life and d eath , se x an d rom an ce, love an d betrayal, are intrinsically in terestin g (Sc h an k , 1979) b e cau se they are fu n d am en tal a sp e cts o f the h u m an dram a th at h ave inspired im agin ation g en eratio n after g en eration . S o m e activities, su ch as playing ten nis or ch ess, are m ore in terestin g th an oth ers b ecau se they provide ch alle n g es and im m ediate feed b ack (C sikszentm ihalyi, 1990). M o st pertin en t to learn in g is the qu estio n o f w h at m ak es a learn er in terested in a d om ain or a topic to the e x te n t th at p rom p ts a desire to learn m ore ab o u t it, an d w h at su stain s and d evelop s th at interest. S u c h in terests are m ost relevan t, th ou gh not n cccssarily co n fin ed , to acad e m ic learn in g settin gs. P iaget (1 977) m ay be the first p sy ch ologist w ho view ed in terests as sin e qu o non for d evelop m en t. H is theory o f d isequ ilib ration and d ev e lo p m en t o f new co gn itiv e stru ctu res is pred icated on the assu m p tio n th at th ere is an in h eren t, organ ism ic ten d en cy in ch ild ren tow ard organizing their ex p erien ces and u n d erstan d ­ ing th eir su rrou n d in gs. R esearch on h u m an curiosity h as led som e research ­ ers to the co n clu sio n th at curiosity resu lts from co gn itiv e d ep rivation w hen on e en co u n ters ob jects an d p h en o m e n a that, w ith their novelty and co m plexity, are beyon d full co m p reh en sion (L oew en stein , 1994). T h is propositio n ex p lain s possible psych ological m ech an ism s u nderlying the c o n cep t o f d iseq u ilib ration p o stu lated by Piaget. From a m o tiv a tio n a l rath er th an co gn itiv e perspective, several A m e ri­ ca n psych ologists p o stu lated that h u m an bein gs h ave an in n ate ten dency tow ard m astery o f the en v iro n m e n t (effectan ce m o tiv atio n ; W h ite, 1959), an d th a t ex p erien ces o f person al c au satio n are intrinsically rew arding (de C h arm s, 1968), an d feelings o f p erson al agency, efficacy, an d co n trol arc fu n d am en tal to h u m an m o tivation (B an d u ra, 1977, 1997). T h e ru d im en ta­ ry form o f this co m p e ten ce m o tiv atio n can be ob served in ch ild ren ’s play. M an ip u latin g toys is intrinsically pleasu rab le b e cau se it gives the child a sen se o f co n trol, pow er, an d co m p e ten ce as the ch ild o v erco m e s ch allen g es an d ex p erien ces su ccessfu l m astery. T h u s, in terest is sy m p tom atic o f these in ternal forces o f m o tiv atio n and su ccessfu l co n trol o f im p o rtan t asp e cts of the en v iron m en t. S u c h an o p tim istic ou tlo o k o f h u m an d ev elo p m en tal p o ten tial only tells one side o f the story. A fte r all, why are som e ch ildren m ore in terested in sch oolw ork th an oth ers, and why d o som e ch ildren display different in terest p attern s an d different degrees o f the sam e interest? T h e answ er is th at there arc m any co n strain ts for in terest d ev elo p m en t. Social-cultural constraints refer to w h at is en co u rag ed and w hat is d isco u raged in the society. Opportunity structure constraints refer to the lim ited ex p osu re or acc ess in dividu als h ave to ce rtain asp e cts o f civilization , cu ltu re, an d h u m an

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

33

endeavor. Related to opportunity structure constraints are knoivledge constraints. Interest in a dom ain is always based on som e experience and understanding o f that dom ain. Ability constraints refer to the way real ability levels or self-perceptions o f abilities constrain how interested a person is or will be in a specific task, topic, or dom ain (Deci, 1992). Developmental constraints are constraints due to age-related maturity and experience, cognitive or social-em otional. Although the preceding constraints are im portant determ inants of individual interests, tem peram ent and personality constraints are more central for understanding how affective experiences with various topics, subjects, or phenom ena shape on e’s interest pattern, and how these affective experiences reflect fundam ental preferences for certain content, m ethods, and m odalities o f human functioning. Kolb (1971) provided a heuristic m odel in which individuals differ along two bipolar dim ensions: people prefer either active experimentation or reflective observation (the doing-w atching continuum ), and at the sam e time they like either concrete experience or abstract conceptualization (the feeling-thinking continuum ). Th us, a person who prefers doing and concrete experience will find education a particularly enjoyable dom ain, whereas a person who likes watching and abstract thinking will be more likely to end up in natural science. Su ch an interest and enjoym ent experienced by individuals may reflect an optim al person-environm ent fit in the sense that task and situational dem ands and features maxim ally m atch the individual’s pre­ ferred m ode o f functioning. A lthough on the surface, interests and styles are unrelated because interests indicate specificity o f content (i.e., related to “w hat”) whereas styles refer to manners (i.e., related to “how”), individu­ al interests may be sym ptom atic o f deeper personal dispositions that have their stylistic com ponent. Simply put, if ability—style links reflect an intrapersonal dynam ic in response to task dem ands, interest-style links reflect an intrapersonal dynam ic in response to task features. Together, they highlight the im portance o f style constructs as an interface o f cognitive ability and personality (Sternberg, 1988).

COGNITIVE-LEARNING ST Y L E S A S EMERGENT CHARACTERISTIC MODES OF INFORMATION PROCESSING Abilities address the question o f whether one is capablc o f learning or performing specific cognitive tasks, interests address the question o f what topic or subject one likes m ost, and cognitive and learning styles address the

34

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

question o f what are characteristic ways one approaches learning tasks. Defined as such, styles reflect more generalized and pervasive aspects o f personal functioning than do abilities and interests. In this sense, cognitive or learning styles should be distinguished from cognitive or learning strategies in that styles, as dispositions, are applied spontaneously across situations, whereas strategies can be conscious or unconscious decision and choice am ong alternative approaches in response to situational dem ands. T h u s, a spontaneous tendency to draw quick conclusions reflects an impulsive cognitive style (K agan, 1966), whereas deliberate use o f “shallow processing” in a given situation reflects a strategy, for good or ill (Schm eck, 1988). W hen a strategy is so contrived and overused that it becom es spontaneous and indiscrim inate, this is a case o f a strategy turning into a style, that is, a stable, self-consistent disposition. M any style constructs have been proposed as im portant dim ensions of individual differences in how they approach cognitive tasks across situ a­ tions O f all style constructs, cognitive styles have received the most extensive scientific inquiry. T o list but a few m ajor dim ensions o f cognitive styles, field depen dence-indepen dence (W itkin & G oodenough, 1978) refers to individual differences in using external versus internal referents in com prehending the stim ulus in question. C onceptual tem po (Kagan, 1966) refers to how reflective or impulsive one is in reaching conclusions under conditions o f uncertainty. C ognitive complexity-sim plicity (Harvey, H unt, & Schroder, 1961; Kelly, 1955; M essick, 1994) refers to the extent to which one construes the world in a m ultidim ensional and discrim inating way. Although focusing on different stylistic aspects o f cognitive functioning, cognitive style theorists assum ed, implicitly or explicitly, these styles arc general m odes and structural properties o f cognitive systems, not merely personal preferences th at are more or less under volitional control and therefore changeable with conscious decision (M essick, 1984, 1994). In contrast to cognitive style constructs, learning styles were proposed by more education-m inded researchers who emphasize styles as personal preferences based on sensory modality (visual, auditory, etc.; Barbe & Sw assing, 1979), content features (abstract vs. concrete; Kolb, 1971), degrees o f structure in the learning process (H unt, 1975), physical and social characteristics o f the learning environm ent (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1975), and types o f instructional activities and degrees o f student involve­ m ent (Renzulli & Sm ith, 1978). Sternberg’s (1997, 1998) theory o f m ental self-governm ent also define styles as personal preferences. A lthough the psychological foundations o f these personal preferences rem ain to be elucidated by research, they presumably emerge from person-situation interactions, reflecting both the effects o f socialization and “natural”

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

35

predilections, and assum ing im portant adaptation functions under specific circum stances. R econciling the objective and subjective, nom othetic and idiographic views o f cognitive and learning styles is not easy because o f underlying theoretical and m ethodological differences. C ognitive style researchers employ a more positivist approach, whereas learning style researchers take a more phenom enological perspective, that is, treating styles as subjective. A distinct m ethodological difference is that cognitive style researchers use alm ost exclusively perform ance-based m easures, whereas learning style researchers rely primarily on self-report m easures. Pask’s (1976, 1988) research program on com prehension versus operation learning style is an exception. A dialogue between these two traditions, however, is not only possible but also beneficial to the understanding o f origins o f cognitive and learning styles. Styles can have both objective and subjective bases. T h e objective basis resides in the structural properties o f cognitive systems or the characteristic m odes o f cognition that are highly stable and typically operate without conscious awareness (though accessible to m etacognitive insights). T h e ability—style links discussed earlier are partly based on this cognitive m akeup. T h e subjective basis lies in on e’s direct learning experi­ ences and m etacognitive knowledge o f what works best for him or her. Affective experiences (including interests) form the second basis. A l­ though style constructs based on m easures o f subjective preferences may be dispersive and idiosyncractic, they represent an im portant aspect o f selfknowledge and self-understanding that guides the learner’s thoughts and actions, hence their legitimacy as part o f the self-system. T h e objective and subjective bases o f cognitive and learning styles arc not without com m on grounds. T h e centrality o f both these cognitive and learning styles to learning and instruction can be seen, according to the m odel presented in Fig. 2.2, in three dim ensions: cognitive and affective properties o f a school subject or discipline, degrees o f structure in instructional activities, and social interaction. First, certain curricular m aterials favor the applicability o f som e styles over others. T h u s, learning traditional m athem atical concepts may favor abstract, sequential, and analytic styles, particularly when they arc present­ ed in a traditional way. T h ose who prefer more concrete, affectively rich m aterials find literature or history' more congenial (Kolb, 1971). If different disciplines represent different realm s o f m eaning or ways o f grasping the essence o f the world (Phcnix, 1964), there arc profound individual differ­ ences regarding what becom e their comfort zones. Second, with respect to degrees o f structure in instructional activities, there is evidence o f differential effects o f instruction for different learners.

36

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

For exam ple, those who are field dependent learn better when structure is provided, because these individuals rely on external fram es for information organization. T h e opposite is true for field-independent learners who impose structures by them selves (Davis, 1991). Sim ilar style by instruction­ al m ethod interaction can be predicted for legislative versus executive style in Sternberg’s (1988) theory o f mental self-governm ent. Third, although learning is by nature a social process involving interac­ tion between the child and adults or peers (Vygotsky, 1978) some individu­ als prefer solitary learning and som e prefer social interaction and sharing. In light o f the robust findings on the personality dim ension o f extroversionintroversion (C osta & M cC rac, 1992), there is no wonder that several theories o f cognitive and learning styles incorporate this aspect (Dunn et al., 1975; Sternberg, 1988; W itkin & G oodenough, 1977). H aving emphasized the cognitive and phenom enological bases o f cogni­ tive and learning styles, we should caution not to lose sight o f the dynam ic and developm ental nature o f these styles. For styles to have som e adaptive values, they should be com patible to im portant aspects o f environm ental dem ands. Otherw ise, styles would be completely idiosyncratic without functional significance. If a learning task not only entails a holistic, global approach to com prehend the overall structural features, but also takes a serialistic, analytic strategy to acquire the procedural knowledge, a flexible or versatile style would be superior to either holistic or serialist styles (Pask, 1988; see also D ai & Feldhusen, in press). Som etim es changes in style become crucial make-or-break developmental tasks. For example, Bamberger (1986) identified a “ midlife crisis” many musically talented children go through during their adolescent years. T o reach a new level o f musical com petence, these children have to abandon the “natural,” intuitive way of m astering m usical work they are used to and adopt more analytic and reflective thinking in their approach to music. Failure to m ake this stylistic change will result in an asym ptote o f the developm ent o f m usical talent. T h us, styles, though stable, are also dynamic, interacting with the environ­ m ent and undergoing adaptive changes. It is not coincidental that clinical psychologists have a more holistic style and experim ental psychologists have a more analytic style. Their personal inclinations could be a factor, but so is the professional training they received over years (Kimble, 1984). Subtle but powerful influences o f socialization are also prevalent in school environm ent. D om inant social reinforcem ent or reward structure of learning situations influences the developm ent o f styles. T each ers who place a premium on order, control, and conformity are likely to prom ote more conventional and less innovative styles on the part o f their malleable learners. School environm ent can also nurture different m otivation-related

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

37

styles or orientations. Entwistle (1988) identified three orientations am ong grade school and college students. A meaning orientation (or deep approach) is characterized by searching for personal understanding, relating ideas and verifying evidence, and intrinsic m otivation. A reproducing orientation (or shallow approach), is characterized by memorizing, sticking to what is prescribed in syllabi, and fear o f failure. A n achieving orientation (or strategic approach) is characterized by strategic efforts to win favorable evaluation of teachers, a desire to outperform peers, and an attem pt to maximize success with minimum effort. In the sam e vein, Bereiter (1990) identified similar orientations, what he called contextual m odules. A contextual module consists o f a set o f dom ain knowledge, goals, attitudes, self-concept, and a code o f conduct an individual develops over time relating to a specific context. T h u s, a schoolwork module is characterized by the m indset that learning tasks arc simply “work” that needs to get done, whereas an intentional learning module not only incorporates learning as part o f on e’s self-concept but has a model dim ension o f com m itm ent to pursuing truth and depth of understanding. T h ese m odules are stylistic because they show self-consistency and stability over time. Yet they have a salient com ponent of perceptions o f the school context, that is, what is expected o f them as students in school, whether they perceive the school as an inviting or threatening place, and w hether they perceive school learning as only about grades or having a larger purpose. A lthough we can argue that the developm ent o f different contextual m odules reflect individual differences am ong students (including differences in abilities and interests), school practices and clim ate arc also a contributing factor. T h is scenario o f social and personal dynam ics o f school environm ent further com plicates the nature o f cognitive and learning styles. T h u s, behaviors identified as stylistic may have different psychological bases (e.g., cognition based, personality based, or m otivation based; see Schm eck, 1988; Sternberg &. Grigorenko, 1997). W hat is com m on about these styles is that they arc em ergent properties o f individual functioning that reflect both the influ­ ences o f the environm ent and the person in question.

ABILITIES, IN TERESTS, AND ST Y L E S AS APTITUDES: STABILITY AND CHANGE Constructs o f abilities, interests, and styles represent our understanding of various cognitive, affective, and conative aspects o f hum an functioning in general and learning in particular (Snow, 1992). H um an beings function as a whole, not as a list o f variables, and an overlapping o f these constructs

38

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

becom es alm ost inevitable. Different aspects o f hum an functioning are so intricately related that it is virtually impossible to get a pure m easure o f one aspect without being confounded by others (see M essick, 1984, 1994). A lso, abilities, interests, and styles are so closely tied to specific situations and contexts that they can best be understood in the contexts in which they m anifest them selves. A n em phasis on situations and contcxt naturally begs the question of whether these abilities, interests, and styles are stable personal characteris­ tics or m alleable qualities that can be relatively easily changed with proper instructional interventions. T o be sure, for aptitudes to have any significant im plications and serve any propaedeutic purposes for learning and instruc­ tion, they should be relatively stable and salient in individual’s cognitiveaffective-conative systems. Otherw ise, it is pointless to take them into consideration when designing instruction (Snow, 1992). T his said, three points need to be kept in mind. First, stability is a m atter o f degree. O n e’s ability in m athem atics, for exam ple, may be relatively stable, particularly com pared with his or her peers. However, this ability is undergoing increm ental changes over time with more learning experiences and proper instructional facilitation. Second, schoolchildren are in their form ative years. T h e pace o f developm ent is not uniform am ong children. Som e abilities, interests, and styles may emerge earlier in some children than in others. T h u s, aptitudes should be assessed by their presence, not by their abscncc. Third, if the person-situation interaction perspective is correct, the em ergence and developm ent o f abilities, interests, and styles are anchored on optim al situations that facilitate them. W e will never know w hether a child is interested in astronom y or biology unless he or she is exposed to relevant m aterials, physically and conceptually. T he frequency o f exposure and the intensity o f experience are not trivial. For instance, think o f the nurturing atm osphere o f a m usical family for a child to develop abilities, interests, and styles relevant to m usical com petence. It is conceiv­ able that som e interests and styles first em erge as situational and transitory, and later becom e stable and traitlike. A s another exam ple, the schoolwork m odule postulated by Bereiter (1990) is not built overnight but is a result of convergence o f num erous experiences across situations within the school context. M any situational encounters eventually lead to dispositional aptitudes, an internalization process that has drawn m uch research atten ­ tion from developm ental as well as educational researchers (Bereiter, 1990; Ryan, 1993). Paradoxically, instructional design should not only be con­ cerned with what aptitudes children spontaneously display, but also with what aptitudes educators hope to nurture (Bruner, 1969). In short, abilities, interests, and styles should be regarded as both the aptitudes for and outcom es o f educational processes. They are stable but undergoing change.

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

39

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS T h e person-situation interaction perspective put forward in this chapter has many practical im plications for programm ing and instruction. By tuning into individual differences, particularly each individual’s strengths, talents, interests, and styles, we stand to accom plish a m ajor educational goal, that is, to help students find a “niche” for them selves that m akes them effective societal mem bers and allows them to m ake unique contributions to the society. In this sense, we are advocating a growth m odel rather than a deficit model for education. T h is m odel is predicated on two premises. First, there are fundam ental developm ental and individual differences in abili­ ties, interests, and styles; each child has a unique set o f strengths and w eaknesses that need to be taken into consideration in instruction. Second, each child has potential for positive growth in terms o f self-understanding, self-direction, and self-m otivation. T he unique configuration o f each child’s abilities, interests, and styles, coupled with experiences and training, will m ake them potential candidates as future leaders, professionals, technicians, social workers, artists, entrepreneurs, and businesspersons. If we accept these premises, school becom es a place for talent developm ent rather than mere lesson learning (Renzulli, 1994). W hat are som e o f the educational applications o f such a m odel? How might it work in real classroom s? T h ese are questions no less im portant than theoretical propositions. A fter all, such a theoretical model would easily turn into mere rhetoric without careful im plem entation in edu ca­ tional practices. Based on more than 20 years o f field research, we proposed a plan called the Schoolw ide Enrichm ent M odel (Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997), which was designed to bring about positive changes in students with diverse backgrounds and profiles o f abilities, interests, and styles. It is a set o f specific strategies for increasing student effort, enjoym ent, and perform ­ ance and for integrating a broad range o f advanced learning experiences and high-order thinking skills into any curricular area, course o f study, and pattern o f school organization. W hat is central about this plan is its effort to encourage and facilitate the dem onstration and developm ent o f individual learners’ interests and talents. T h is goal is achieved by three strategies. First, instructional procedures and program m ing were developed to provide for all students a broad range o f exploratory experiences such as guest speakers, field trips, and interest centers, and to expose students to a variety o f exciting topics, ideas, and fields o f knowledge not ordinarily covered in the regular curriculum. Stu d en ts’ responses to these experiences were used as stepping stones for

40

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

more advanced, follow-up activities. For exam ple, pollution may be one o f the many topics that attract students. A s a result, students who share an interest in pollution problems may form an “enrichm ent cluster” and may decide later to carry out a research project on the conditions o f local rivers. A s part o f the process, each m em ber’s strengths are brought into play and each becom es a specialist within the group. Su ch activities not only make learning personally m eaningful and intrinsically rewarding, they also facili­ tate critical and creative thinking in a way that can not be achieved by didactic instruction and textbook learning. Research shows that students who participated in these exploratory activities identified more interests than com parable students who did not (Stednitz, 1985), and that students who were involved in more productive-creative activities had higher selfefficacy with regard to creative productivity (Starko, 1986). It is not unusual that such school experiences develop into an enduring passion and interest, even influencing career choicc later (Delcourt, 1993). Here, positive experiences and growth are engendered by affording students opportunities, resources, and guidance usually not available in the regular classroom . Second, a strength assessm ent guide called Total Talent Portfolio (T T P ; Purcell & Renzulli, 1998) was developed to help prom ote studen ts’ selfawareness and forethought as well as to assess their strengths, interests, and cognitive-learning styles on a regular basis. It contains the studen t’s selfratings; teachcrs’ observations, suggestions, and recom m endations; the studen t’s short-term and long-term goals; written products; and docum en­ tation o f studen ts’ activities in and outside o f school relevant to the developm ent o f interests and talents. Studen ts have autonom y with respect to the folder and its contents. T hey are also responsible for form ulating and refining criteria for the inclusion o f products. T h e T T P changes the way students perceive evaluation, from a focus on who is doing better than whom to a focus on how they can capitalize on their strengths while avoiding or com pensating for their w eaknesses, and essential ingredient of successful intelligence (Sternberg, 1998). W ith T T P in hand, students are more mindful o f what fascinates them (interests), what is easy or different for them (abilities), what com es naturally for them (styles), what they hope to achieve (goals), and how far they have gone (self-monitoring), a kind o f m etacognition highly valuable for sclf-dircctcd and self-regulated learning (see Schunk & Zim m erm an, 1994). Third, assessm ent becom es an integral part o f instruction and learning, and instructional interventions depend on assessm ent inform ation. Before instruction, inform ation about a studen t’s abilities, interests, and styles— including test scores, grades, and self-ratings— is gathered. T h is is called status information, which permits an initial assessm ent o f a studen t’s

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S . AND S T Y L E S

41

propaedeutic conditions. During instruction, further inform ation is obtained by teachers through direct observation in regular classroom s or during enrichm ent activities. Som e new interests or strengths may emerge in the process. This inform ation is called action information because it provides up-to-date inform ation about students (the inner environm ent, if you will). T h is is typically done through a shared decision m aking that involves teachers and the student, and som etim es parents. For exam ple, for students who are underchallenged by regular curricular m aterials, a proce­ dure called curriculum compacting (Reis, Burns, &. Renzulli, 1992) is used to condense the m aterial so that spared time can be spent on more advanced, “high-end” learning tasks that are com m ensurate with the stu den t’s level of knowledge and skills. It is not surprising, given the current status o f many school textbooks and curricula, as much as 50% o f regular curricular activities and m aterials can be elim inated for som e advanced students without negatively affecting their achievem ent across school subjects (Reis ct al., 1992). Tw o principles underlie this instructional sequence or design. O ne is that assessm ent is an ongoing, dynam ic process, and m ultidim en­ sional in nature. T raditional standardized tests still serve as one o f many indicators o f studen ts’ strengths. However, no single norm ative rank score can be a substitute for a sound judgm ent based on a careful analysis and synthesis o f multiple sources and dim ensions o f information. A lso, the purpose o f assessm ent is never to rank order students but to provide appropriate educational service that cultivates the strengths o f individual students. T h e other principle is that instruction should be as differentiated as possible in response to em ergent characteristics o f the learner, be it a newly found passion for a topic or the difficulty o f understanding a m athem atical concept. Differentiation o f curricula and instructional ac­ tivities does not m ean privileged treatm ents for high-achieving students and lowering o f standards for low-achicving students. Rather, it is designed to address the needs o f each student and prom ote positive experiences (see Fig. 2.2) crucial for successful learning, talent developm ent, and person­ al growth.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we reviewed som e m ajor theoretical perspectives on hum an abilities, interests, and styles, which we believe arc critical concepts for understanding hum an diversity in their approaches to learning tasks, within or outside o f school settings. W e also believe these concepts are interrelated in many ways and better understood from the context within which they are observed and m easured. W e therefore propose a p erson -

42

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

situation interaction perspective that sees abilities as outcom es as well as antecedents o f hum an interactions with task dem ands and opportunities, interests as em ergent self-direction and self-differentiation, and cognitive and learning styles as em ergent m odes o f inform ation processing and selfexpression in the person-situation interaction. W e further postulate the optim al instructional conditions are achieved when both the outer envi­ ronm ent o f instruction and the inner environm ent o f learning are tuned to and reciprocate with each other. A chievem ent o f such optim al conditions is indicated by studen ts’ positive changes in their self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic interests in academ ic and other subjects, self-understanding, and self-identity as an intentional learner. W e presented som e practical appli­ cations o f this perspective that, when infused into regular school curricula and instruction, have been shown to be effective. O n the threshold o f the next century, a call for school reform and im provem ent has never been so urgent, and justifiably so. T he question is how. W ith the increasing diversity o f student populations we are serving in this nation, im posing uniform standards from the top down is a tough sell. W e constantly hear the suggestions for more external regulation such as increasing “high-stakes testing.” W e doubt, however, such m easures can achieve the effects o f their intended better educational outcom es. They may create the illusion o f improved achievem ent, but the reality is increased pressure on schools to expand the use o f com pensatory learning m odels that, so far, have contributed only to the “dum bing dow n” of curriculum and lowering o f standards. W e suggest in this chapter a different approach designed to develop each child’s talents and strengths, o f which cognitive and learning styles are an integral part. W e arc less concerned with who has the highest test scores and more concerned with what will be the best educational experiences we can provide to a child. W e are not as m uch concerned with raising test scores as we are with increasing studen t’s intrinsic m otivation to learn and improving self-direction and self-regula­ tion. A cadem ic achievem ent is an im portant part o f the overall educational goal. However, we believe that a focus on capitalizing on and developing each child’s strengths and talents also places the need for improved academ ic achievem ent into a larger perspective about the goal o f edu ca­ tion. T h e things that have m ade our nation great and our society produc­ tive are m anifestations o f talent developm ent at all levels and aspects of hum an activity. From the creators and inventors o f new ideas, products, and art forms to the vast array o f people who m anufacture, advertise, and m arket the creations that enrich our lives, there are levels o f excellence and quality that contribute to our standard of living and way of live. O ur vision o f school for talent developm ent grows out o f the belief that everyone has

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S , AND S T Y L E S

43

an im portant role to play in the im provem ent o f society and that everyone’s role can be enhanced if we provide all students with the opportunities, resources, and encouragem ent to develop their talents as fully as possible. From this point o f view, the diversity o f our student population is a strength rather than a weakness. From this diversity com e various stylistic differ­ ences in adaptation to learning tasks and social environm ents. Properly developed and used, they can have high functional and adaptive values.

REFEREN CES A nastasi, A. (1980). Abilities and the m easurem ent o f achievem ent. In W. B. Schrader (Ed.), Measuring achievement: Progress over a decade (pp. 1-10). San Francisco; Josscy-Bass. Bam berger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the developm ent o f m usical gifted children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. D avidson (Eds.), Conceptions o f giftedness (pp. 38 8 -4 1 5 ). New York: C am bridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Tow ard a unifying theory o f behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A . (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise o f control. New York: Freeman. Barbe, W . B., & Sw assing, R. H. (1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Ccmcept and practices. Colum bus, O H : Zaner-Bloser. Bereiter, C . (1990). A spects o f an educational learning theory. Review o f Educational Research, 60, 6 0 3 -624. Brown, A . (1997). Transform ing schools into com m unities of thinking and learning about serious m atters. American Psychologist, 52, 3 9 9-413. B ru ner,J. (1 9 6 9 ).On knowing: Essays for the left lumd. Cam bridge, M A :T h e Belknap Press o f H arvard University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. N ew York: C am bridge University Press. C ase, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. O rlando, FL: A cadem ic Press. Chess, S., & Thom as, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel. C o sta, P. T ., Jr., & M cC rae, R. R. (1992). Revised N E O Personality Inventory (NEO -PI-R) and N E O Five-Factor Inventory (N E O -FF I) professional manual. O dessa, FL: Psychologi­ cal A ssessm ent Resources. Csikszentm ihalyi, M . (1990). Flow: The psychology o f optimal experience. N ew York: H arper & Row. Dai, D. Y., & Feldhusen, J. F. (in p ress). A validation study o f the T hinking Style Inventory: Im plications for gifted education. Roeper Review. D avis, J. K. (1991). Educational im plications o f field dependence-independence. In S. W apner & J. Dem ick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 149 -1 7 6 ). H illsdale, N J: Lawrencc Erlbaum A ssociates, dc C harm s, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants o f behavior. New York: A cadem ic Press. D eci, E. L. (1992). T h e relation o f interest to the m otivation o f behavior: A se lfdeterm ination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A . Krapp (Eds.), The role o f interest in learning and development (pp. 4 3 -7 0 ). H illsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.

44

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

D elcourt, M. A . B. (1993). C reative productivity am ong secondary school students: Com bining energy', interest, and im agination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23-31. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., &. Price, G . E. (1975). Learning style inventory. C happaqu a, NY: Rita Dunn &. A ssociates. Entwistle, N . (1988). M otivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Sch m eck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 2 1 -5 1 ). New York: Plenum. Flynn, J. R (1987). M assive IQ gains in 14 nations: W hat IQ tests really m easure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171-191. Flynn, J. R. (1994). IQ gains over time. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 6 1 7 -6 2 3 ). N ew York: M acm illan. Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: T h e discovery o f IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5-20. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. N ew York: Basics. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Th ree faces o f intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479. Harvey, O . J., H unt, D . E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley. H errnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. New York: Free Press. H unt, D. E. (1975). P erson-cnvironm ent interaction. A challenge found w anting before it was tried. Review of Educational Psychology, 45, 209-230. Kagan, Jr. (1966). Reflection-im pulsivity: T h e generality and dynam ics o f conceptual tem po. Journal o f Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17—24. Kelly, G. A . (1955). The psychology o f personal constructs (Vol. 1). New York: N orton. Kim ble, G . A . (1984). Psychology’s two cultures. American Psychologist, 39, 8 3 3 -8 3 9 . Kolb, D. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process. Cam bridge, M A : M IT Press. Lewis, M . D. (1989). Early infant-m other interaction as a predictor o f problem -solving in toddlers. International Journal of Early Childhood, 21, 13-22. Loew enstein, G . (1994). T h e psychology o f curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, ¡1 6 , 75-98. Lohm an, D. F. (1993). T each in g and testing to develop fluid abilities. Educational Research­ er, 22, 12-23. M cCall, R. B. (1981). N atu re-nurtu re and the two realms o f developm ent: A proposed integration with respect to m ental developm ent. Child Development, 52, 1-12. M cK enna, F. P. (1990). Learning im plications o f field dependence-independence: C ogn i­ tive style versus cognitive ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 4 2 5-437. M essick, S. (1984). T h e nature o f cognitive styles: Problems and prom ise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59-74M essick, S. (1994). T h e m atter o f style: M anifestations o f personality in cognition, learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29, 121-136. Newell, A ., & Sim on, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. N icholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democrative education. C am bridge, M A : H arvard University Press. Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies o f learning. British Jounutl of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148. Pask, G . (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual and learning style. In R. R. Schm eck (Ed.), Learning strategies aiui learning styles (pp. 8 3 -1 0 0 ). New York: Plenum. Phenix, P. H. (1964). Realms o f meaning: A philosophy of the curriculum for general education. N ew York: McGraw-Hill.

2.

A B IL IT IE S , I N T E R E S T S , AND S T Y L E S

45

Phenix, P. H . (1987). Views on the use, misuse, and abuse of instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual m eeting o f the Leadership T raining Institute on the Gifted and T alen ted , H ouston, T X . Piaget, J. (1967). Six psychological studies. New York: Random H ouse. Piaget, J. (1977). T h e developm ent o f thought: Equilibration o f cognitive structures. (A. Rosin, T ran s.). New York: Viking. Plomin, R. & Petrill, S. A. (1997). G enetics and intelligence: W h at’s new? Intelligence, 24, 53 -7 7 . Prenzel, M . (1992). T h e selective persistence o f interest. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. K rapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and developmeru (pp. 7 1 -9 8 ). H illsdale, N J: Law rcncc Erlbaum A ssociates. Purcell, J. H., & Renzulli, J. S. (1988). Total talent portfolio: A systematic plan to identify and nurture gifts and talents. M ansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Reis, S. M ., Burns, D. E., &. Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum cotnpacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high-ability students. M ansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1988). T h e M ultiple M enu M odel for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 170-181. Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the developm ent o f creative productivity in young people. In F. M onks & W . Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future: Social and personality development for gifted children (pp. 5 1 -7 2 ). A ssen /M aastrich t, T h e N eth erlan d s: V an Gorcum . Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. M ansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., &. Reis, S. M. (1985). The school wide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. M ansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd e d .). Mansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Sm ith, L. H. (1978). The learning style inventory: A measure of student preference for instructional techniques. Mansfield C enter, C T : C reative Learning Press. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic m otivation, autonom y, and the self in psychological developm ent. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 1 -55). Lincoln: T h e University o f N ebraska Press. Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling inferences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273-297. Schm cck, R. R. E. (Ed.). (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regtdation of learning and perform­ ance: Issues and educational applications. H illsdale, N J: Law rence Erlbaum A ssociates. Shulm an, L. S. (1986). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations o f the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Sigel, I. E. (1991). T h e cognitive style construct: A conceptual analysis. In S. W apner & J. Dem ick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence: Cognitive style across the lifespan (pp. 385— 397). H illsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates. Snow, R. E. (1992). A ptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psycholo­ gist, 27, 5 -32. Snow , R. E., C o m o , L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C . Berliner & R. C. C alfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 2 4 3 -3 1 0 ). New York: Sim on & Sch uster M acm illan. Snow , R. E. & Lohm an, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory o f cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347-376.

46

R E N Z U L L I AND DAI

Starko, A . J. (1986). The effects of the revolving door identification model on creativity and selfefficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, T h e University o f C onnecticut, Storrs. Stednitz, U . (1985). The influence of educational enrichment on the self-efficacy in young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. T h e University o f C onnecticut, Storrs. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). H um an intelligence: A n inform ation-processing approach. New York: Freem an. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). M ental self-government: A theory o f intellectual styles and their developm ent. Human Development, 31, 197-221. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. N ew York: C am bridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms o f developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27, 11-20. Sternberg, R. J., &. Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in Style? American Psychologist, 52, 70 0-712. Sternberg, R. J., & K aufm an, J. C . (1998). H um an abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 4 7 9 -5 0 2 . T h om as, A ., & C hess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Bruner/M azel. Vygotsky, L. C . (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. C ole, V. John-Steiner, S. Shribner, & E. Souberm an (Eds.). C am bridge, M A : H arvard University Press. W achtel, P. L. (1972). Field dependence and psychological differentiation: Reexam ination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35, 43 -5 0 . W hite, R. W. (1959). M otivation reconsidered: T h e concept o f com petence. Psychological Review, 66, 29 7 -3 3 3. W itkin, H. A ., & G o o d en o u g h , D. R. (1978). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 6 6 1-689.

3 The Nature and Effects of Cognitive Style R ic h a rd R id in g Assessment Research Unit, University o f Birm ingham , U K

INTRODUCTION T h is chaptcr begins with a consideration o f the labels used by investigators to describe cognitive style and proposes a categorization o f these into two fundam ental style dim ensions: the wholist—analytic and verbal-im agery. M ethods o f assessing style are outlined and a simple direct m ethod is described. Style is then exam ined within the context o f other individual difference variables such as intelligence, gender, and personality to estab­ lish its independence o f these dim ensions. T h e bipolar nature o f cognitive style, which distinguishes it from unipolar dim ensions o f individual differ­ ence such as intelligence, is detailed. T h e evidence for the physiological aspects o f style is described. N ext, the relation between the style dim en­ sions and a range o f behaviors relevant to education is reported and practical im plications are explored. Finally, a model o f style within the co ntext o f other individual difference variables is considered.

47

48

RIDING

COGNITIVE ST Y LE AND ITS A SSESSM EN T The Sty le D im en sion s O ver the last 60 years, investigators have reported many style dim ensions. However, generally, the researchers developed their own instrum ents for assessm ent in their own contexts and gave their own labels to the style they were studying with little reference to the work o f others. Predictably, this produced a large num ber o f style labels. T aken at face value, this produced a situation that gave the im pression there were many style dimensions. If this had been the case, these labels would have been o f little practical value for education. C onveniently, several researchers sensed that many labels are only different conceptions o f the sam e dim ensions (e.g., Brumby, 1982; C oan, 1974; Fowler, 1980; Miller, 1987; Riding & Buckle, 1990). Riding and C heem a (1991), after reviewing the descriptions, correlations, m eth­ ods o f assessm ent, and effect on behavior o f more than 30 labels, concluded they could be grouped into two fundam ental cognitive style dim ensions, which they termed w holist-analytic and verbal-im agery. T h is view was confirm ed in a further review by Rayner and Riding (1997). T h e identifica­ tion o f just two basic dim ensions is significant because it m akes the practical application o f style viable. C ognitive style is seen as an individual’s preferred and habitual approach to both organizing and representing inform ation (Riding and Rayner, 1998, p.8). T h ese two dim ensions o f cognitive style, shown in Fig. 3.1, may be described as follows: the w holistanalytic style dim ension o f whether an individual tends to organize inform ation in wholes or parts, and the verbal-im agery style dim ension o f whether an individual tends to represent inform ation during thinking verbally or in m ental pictures. T h e w holist-analytic dim ension is a developm ent o f the family o f styles that includes field dependence-independence (e.g., Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & K arp , 1971), lcveling-sharpcning (Klein, 1954), and impulsivity-refectivity (Kagan, Rosm an, Day, Albert, & Philips, 1964). T h e verbal-im agery dim ension is related to the family o f abstract-concrete (Harvey, blunt, & Schroder, 1961) and verbalizer-visualizer (Paivio, 1971). A more extensive consideration o f the style families is given in Riding and Rayner (1998, p.20). It is useful to distinguish between style and strategy. Style probably has a physiological basis and is fairly fixed for the individual. By contrast, strategies arc ways that may be learned and developed to copc with situations and tasks, and particularly m ethods o f using styles to m ake the best o f situations for which they are not ideally suited.

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

49

A sse s sm e n t o f Cognitive Style Tw o approaches have been used to assess style: introspective self-report and tests o f inform ation processing based on the assum ption that perform ­ ance is affected by style. T h e latter is argued to be preferable because introspective self-report m easures have inherent w eaknesses. T h ese in­ clude the subject’s possible inability to accurately and objectively report his or her behavior, unwillingness to make the necessary effort to respond accurately, and bias due to the pressure o f social desirability in m aking responses (e.g., Kline, 1995, p. 512). However, the inform ation-processing approach is not without its prob­ lems. In terms o f the w holist-analytic dim ension, W itkin et al. (1971) used the EFT, which asked subjects to locate simple geom etrical figures within more com plex figures in a given time. T his was intended to assess field dependence-independence, and W itkin et al. assum ed field-independent individuals would be able to locate items more quickly than field-dependcnt individuals. A lim itation o f this approach was that no subtest was used on which the field-dependent individuals were likely to perform better than the field-independent individuals. It may be objected that the E F T assesses intelligence rather than style, because overall perform ance is also affected by general ability or “ intelligence” (e.g., Flexer & Roberge, 1980; G oldstein & Blackm an, 1978, pp. 183-184; Riding, & Pearson, 1994 pp. 4 1 9 -4 2 0 1994, )• For the verbal-im agery dim ension, Delaney (1978) used tests of both verbal and spatial perform ance. H ow ever the results were used independently o f one another and not together, by m eans o f a ratio or a difference. T h e m ethod proposed by Riding (1991a) in developing the cognitive styles analysis (C S A ) was to assess perform ance on simple tasks that might then be representative o f processing generally, with the intention of m easuring an individual’s position on both the w holist-analytic and the verbal-im agery dim ensions. T h e background to the developm ent o f the C S A was given in Riding and C heem a (1991). T h e C S A is com puter presented, directly assesses both ends o f the w holist-analytic and verbalimagery dim ensions, and comprises three subtests. T h e first assesses the verbal-im agery dim ension by presenting 48 statem ents one at a time to be judged true or false. H alf o f the statem ents contain inform ation about conceptual categories (e.g., spring is a season), and half describe the appearance o f item s (e.g., snow is white). H alf o f the statem ents o f each type are true. It was assum ed imagers would respond more quickly to the appearance statem ents, because the objects could be readily represented as m ental pictures and the inform ation for the com parison could be obtained directly and rapidly from these images. It was assum ed verbalizers would

50

R ID IN G

resp o n d m ore q u ick ly to c o n c e p tu a l categ o ry item s b e c a u se th e se m an tic c o n c e p tu a l categ o ry m em b ersh ip is verbally a b str a c t in n atu re an d c a n n o t be re p re se n te d in v isu al form . T h e c o m p u te r reco rd s th e resp o n se tim e to e a c h sta te m e n t an d c a lc u la te s th e v e rb a l-im a g e ry ratio . A low ratio in d ic a te s a verbalizer an d a h igh ratio in d ic a te s an im ager, w ith the in te rm e d ia te p o sitio n d esc rib ed as b im o d al. In th is a p p ro a c h , in d iv id u als h a v e to read b o th th e v erb al an d th e im agery item s so th a t read in g ability an d re a d in g sp e e d are co n tro lle d for. T h e se c o n d tw o su b te sts asse ss the w h o list-a n a ly tic d im en sio n . T h e first o f th ese p re se n ts item s c o n ta in in g p airs o f c o m p le x g e o m e trical figures th at th e in d iv id u al is req u ired to ju d g e e ith e r th e sa m e or d ifferen t. B e c a u se this ta sk in v o lv e s ju d g m e n ts a b o u t th e o v e rall sim ilarity o f th e tw o figu res, it w as a ssu m ed th a t a relatively fast re sp o n se to th is task w ould be p o ssib le by w h olists. T h e se c o n d su b tc st p re se n ts item s e a c h co m p risin g a sim ple g e o m e tric a l sh a p e (e.g., a sq u are or a trian gle) a n d a c o m p le x g e o m e trical figure, an d th e in d iv id u al is ask e d to in d icate w h eth er th e sim p le sh ap e is c o n ta in e d in th e c o m p le x sh ap e by p ressin g o n e o f tw o m ark e d resp o n se keys. T h is task req u ires a d eg re e o f d ise m b e d d in g o f the sim p le sh a p e from w ith in th e c o m p le x g e o m e tric a l figure to e stab lish th at it is th e sam e as the stim u lu s sim p le sh ap e d isp lay ed . It w as a ssu m e d an aly tics w ou ld be re la tiv e ­ ly q u ick e r a t th is. A g a in , th e c o m p u te r reco rd s th e late n cy o f th e resp o n ses an d c a lc u la te s th e w h o list-a n a ly tic ratio . A low ratio co rre sp o n d s to a w h olist an d a h igh ratio co rre sp o n d s to an an aly tic. R a tio s b e tw een th ese p o sitio n s are lab eled in te rm e d iate . It sh o u ld be n o te d th a t e a c h style d im e n sio n is a c o n tin u u m , an d su b seq u en tly lab els will only be a tta c h e d to ra n g e s o n a d im en sio n for co n v e n ie n c e . T h is is sh ow n in Fig. 3 .1 . T h e C S A p ro v id es a sim p le m e th o d o f d e te rm in in g a p e r so n ’s p o sitio n on th e tw o fu n d a m e n ta l co g n itiv e style d im en sio n s (R id in g, 1 9 9 1 b ). T h e

WHOLIST-

ANALYTIC VERBAUSER

ANALYTIC BIMODAL

ANALYTIC IMAGER

ANALYTIC

INTERMEDIATE VERBAUSER

INTERMEDIATE BIMODAL

INTERMEDIATE IMAGER

DIMENSION

WHOUST VERBALISER

WHOUST BIMODAL

WHOUST IMAGER

VERBAL-IMAGERY DIMENSION F IG . 3.1.

T h e gro u pin gs o f c o gn itive style.

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

51

test has several features in that it is an objective test, as defined by C attell and W arburton (1967), because it positively assesses both ends o f each style dim ension and hence m easures style rather than ability, it can be used with a wide age range from children to adults, it is context free and can be used in a wide range o f situations, and it is probably culture free in nature. T h e C S A is available in various languages: versions in English for the A ustralian, N orth A m erican, Sou th African, and U nited Kingdom contexts, and versions in A rabic, French, D utch, G erm an, M alay, and Spanish. In the following sections on the nature and effects o f style the consideration is limited to studies using the C S A approach. Except where stated the studies reviewed were undertaken in the United Kingdom .

THE NATURE OF ST Y LE In considering cognitive style as a distinct psychological construct, it is im portant that the style dim ensions should not duplicate other existing constructs that might affect educational perform ance and should have a physiological basis. Th us, the dim ensions should be: (a) unrelated to one another, (b) independent o f intelligence, (c) distinct from ability and they fulfill the requirem ents o f a style, (d) separate from personality, and (e) related to physiological m easures. A further consideration is the origin of style, w hether it is inborn or learned.

The Style D im en sion s T h e cognitive style dim ensions have been found to be separate from one another, such that the position o f an individual on one dim ension does not affect his or her position on the other. T h e correlation between the two dim ensions has been found to be consistently low and typically r = ± 0 .1 (e.g., Riding, Burton, Rees, & Sharratt, 1995; Riding & D ouglas, 1993). Furtherm ore, there do not appear to be overall gender differences with respect to cognitive style. Differences are usually small and nonsignificant on both dim ensions (P < 0.05; e.g., Riding ct al., 1995). A lthough not usually significant, m ales frequently have been observed to be slightly more analytic than fem ales. O n the verbal-im agery dim ension not even a hint of a difference has been found. W ith respect to age, where sam ples were from a wide age range, no significant correlation between age and style was observed. For exam ple, with a sam ple o f nurses aged 21 to 61 years, the correlations betw een age and w holist-analytic style, and verbal-im agery style, were, respectively, r = 0.00 and r = 0.01 (from the data collected by Riding & W heeler, 1995).

52

RIDING

Intelligence an d Style Cognitive style appears to be unrelated to intelligence. Riding and Pearson (1994) with 12- to 13-year-old pupils found that intelligence as assessed by subtests o f the British Abilities Scale was not related to cognitive style. T h e correlations betw een the four subtests used and the w holist-analytic and verbal-im agery ratios were all nonsignificant and were, respectively: Digits -0 .0 1 ,0 .1 2 ; Sim ilarities -0 .0 3 ,0 .0 1 ; M atrices -0.10, 0.04; Speed o f Inform a­ tion Processing 0.07, 0.02. Riding and Agrell (1997) observed similar findings from a study in C an ad a o f the relationship between style and the C an ad ian T est o f C ognitive Skills (C T C S ) with 14- to 16-ycar-old stu ­ dents. T h e C T C S contains four subtests comprising intelligence test-type items. Th ese together with the respective correlations with the w holistanalytic and verbal-im agery ratios were: Sequences 0.01, -0.10; A nalogies 0.01, -0.05; M emory -0.03, -0.03; Verbal R easoning -0.02, -0.10. A gain, all the correlations were low.

Style D im ension Positive an d N egative interaction with a V ariable It is im portant to distinguish between style and ability. Both style and ability affect perform ance on a given task. T he essential difference is that perform ance on all tasks improves as ability increases, whereas the effect of style on perform ance for an individual is either positive or negative depending on the nature o f the task. Consequently, for an individual at one end o f a style dim ension, a task o f a type they find difficult will be found easier by som eone at the opposite end o f the dim ension, and vice versa. For exam ple, with the verbal-im agery style dim ension, verbalizers would find pictorial tasks more difficult than would imagers, but they would find highly verbal tasks easier than would imagers. In summary, for style an individual is both good and poor at tasks depending on the nature o f the task, whereas for intelligence they are either good or poor. It is thus a characteristic o f a style, as distinct from an ability, that it should interact with a variable such that the relative perform ance o f an individual at one extrem e o f a dim ension should be higher than that o f a person at the other end in one condition, but that the situation should be reversed when the condition is changed. Single-dim ension interactions have been found. W ith the w holist-analytic dim ension this type o f interac­ tion was observed by D ouglas and Riding (1993) in the effect o f the position, before or after, o f a prose passage title on recall. W ith the verbal-

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

53

imagery dim ension the interaction was found by Riding and D ouglas (1993) on text-plus-text versus text-plus-picture presentation o f learning m aterial, and by Riding and W atts (1997) in the preference for verbal or pictorial form ats o f instructional m aterial. However, in many real-life tasks there is likely to be an interaction between the two dim ensions and the condition, rather than an effect o f only one o f the dim ensions without any effect of the other.

P ersonality an d Style In an investigation o f the relation between style and personality m easures, Riding and Wigley (1997) gave College o f Further E ducation students aged 17 to 18 years the following: the Eysenck Personality Q uestionnaire-Revised (EPQ -R) Short Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) to as­ sess E xtraversión , N eu roticism , and P sychoticism ; the Im pulsiveness, Venturesomeness, and Empathy (IVE) Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) to determ ine these traits; and the State and T rait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, 1977). A factor analysis gave four factors labeled Anxiety, Im pulsiveness, Empathy, and Style. N o personality measure loaded beyond ± 0 .3 3 on Style. Riding and W igley also looked at the interactive effect o f the w holistanalytic style and verbal-im agery style on personality m easures. They noted significant effects such that for N euroticism , w holist-vcrbalizcrs and analytic-im agcrs were more anxious than analytic-verbalizcrs and w holistimagers. For Im pulsiveness, w holist-verbalizers and analytic-im agers were more impulsive and decisive than analytic-verbalizers and wholist-imagers. They suggested a m odel in which physiologically based personality sources are independent o f cognitive style but are m oderated by style in their effect on behavior.

Sty le an d P h ysiological M ech an ism s It is im portant evidence for any psychological construct if it can be shown to have physiological correlates. In reviewing work on electroencephalogram (EEC ) relevant to the verbal-im agery dimension, Riding, G lass, and D ouglas (1993) suggested that E E C alpha suppression (indicating mental activity) during inform ation processing would probably occur over the left hem isphere for verbalizers and over the right hemisphere for imagers. For the w holist-analytic dim ension no clear prediction was m ade other than it would not be in terms o f left-right hem ispheric specialization.

54

RIDING

Riding, G lass, Butler, and Pleydell-Pearce (1997) reported an investiga­ tion o f EEG and style. They recorded EEG alpha in subjects while doing com puter-presented w ord-targeting tasks in which words appeared one at a time on the screen. T h e task required subjects to m onitor the displayed words and to press a button whenever a noun from the superordinate categories o f "fruit” or “vegetable” was displayed (e.g., apple or carrot). The study revealed a significant effect for the w holist-analytic dim ension along the m idline (locations Fz, Cz, and Pz), with alpha suppression being greater for the analytics and fairly uniform along the line and alpha suppression decreasing from anterior to posterior for the wholist. For the verbalimagery dim ension the ratio o f the power output at T 5 (left) to that at T 6 (right) correlated with the verbal-im agery ratio in the expected direction. A n analysis o f all the EEG frequency bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta 1, beta 2, and gam m a; G lass and Riding, in press), showed for the midline (locations Fz, Cz, and Pz) that the wholists had higher output than analytics in theta and alpha, but lower in gam m a. In the paramedial cluster ( F p ,, C ,, O ,—left and Fp,, C 4 and O ,-rig h t), verbalizers had greater right power than imagers for all bands except alpha. Furtherm ore, the overall power was greater on the right for imagers than for verbalisers frontally, and the converse occipitally. In the lateral grouping (F;, T s, T 3-le ft and Fs, T 4 and T 6-righ t), the w holist-verbalizers had greater overall power left anterotemporally than other subgroups. T h ese results are im portant because they suggest a physiological evi­ dence for style, although it should be noted that in this study the tasks were likely to favor analytics and verbalizers. Further studies are required using a range o f inform ation-processing tasks to establish more clearly the nature o f brain activity in different styles.

T he Origins o f Style A natural question arises as to the origins o f style, particularly whether it is genetically determ ined or environm entally influenced. If the latter is the case, home background as indicated by parental support, which is a strong environm ental influence, might be expected to affect style. U sing a sam ple o f 12-year-old pupils, Riding, Rayner, and Banner (2000) explored the relation between style and home background. T h e teachers o f the pupils were asked to rate the home background in terms o f the parental support given to each child on a 5-point scale, where 1 was the worst and 5 the best. T h e ratings were: 1, very poor; 2, poor; 3, m oderate; 4, good; 5, very good. T h e distribution o f the hom e background ratings were: very poor, 7.2% ; poor, 9.5% ; m oderate, 29.4% ; good, 30.6% ; very good, 23.4% . N one o f the

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

55

effects on the style ratios o f either gentler or background, or the interaction, was significant (sm allest P = 0.33). T h ere was no consistent style trend with respect to hom e background for either dimension. For both style dim ensions, com parison o f the m ean ratios for pupils from the poor hom es with those from the very good hom es showed little difference. C aution needs to be used in m aking deductions from the lack of a relation because the rating by the teachers might be an inadequate m easure and the lack o f a relation could thus be because o f poor quality data. O n the other hand, the teachers were likely to be aware o f very poor hom e backgrounds, and even if their other ratings were uncertain, the ratings at the lower end were probably more valid. Because the home background is a strong environm ental influence, the absence o f any relation with such a basic variable suggests style is more likely to be a m atter o f nature rather than nurture, and this permits the possibility that it is genetic in origin. T o conclude this section, there is evidence that the style dim ensions are independent o f one another, unrelated to intelligence and personality, and have a physiological basis. T h e available evidence suggests style dim ensions arc inborn or learned at an early age.

THE EFFE C T OF ST Y LE T he Action of Style In considering the effect o f style on a range o f behaviors relevant to education, the effect will som etim es be that o f a single-style dim ension, som etim es an interactive effect o f the two-style dim ension, and at other times an interaction between one or more o f the style dim ensions and one o f the other individual difference variables of intelligence, personality, or gender. It is useful to begin a review o f the effects o f style with a general m odel o f the ways the two style dim ensions may act.

W h o lis t-A n o ly tic D im e n s io n . T h is dim ension influences the structural way in which individuals think about, view, and respond to inform ation and situations. T his affects the m anner in which they organize inform ation during learning, perceive their work situation, and relate to other people. W holists see a situation as a whole and are able to have an overall perspective, and to appreciate its total context. By contrast, analytics see a situation as a collection o f parts and often focus on one or two aspects o f the situation at a time to the exclusion o f the others. Interm ediates are able to

56

R ID IN G

WHOLIST VIEW

BLURRED WHOUST VIEW F IG . 3.2.

ANALYTIC VIEW

DISTORTED ANALYTIC VIEW

W h o list and an aly tic view s.

h a v e a view b e tw een th e e x tre m e s, w h ich sh o u ld allow so m e o f the a d v a n ta g e s o f b o th . F igu re 3 .2 sh ow s, in a sc h e m a tic way, how a situ a tio n o r in fo rm atio n m igh t be p erce iv ed by w h olists an d an aly tics. T h e form er view ten d s to be u nitary, a n d th e la tte r m ore se p a ra te d in to p arts. B o th sty les h av e lim ita ­ tio n s a n d a d v a n ta g e s. T h e lim itatio n for w h olists is th at n o t on ly are the p a rts n o t se p a ra te d , b u t th e d istin c tio n b e tw een th em m ay be blu rred (see F ig 3 .2 ) so th a t it is d ifficu lt to d istin g u ish th e issu es th at m ak e up th e w hole o f a situ a tio n . By c o n tra st, as also sh ow n in Fig 3 .2 , an aly tics fo cu s on ju st o n e a sp e c t o f th e w h ole at a tim e. T h is m ay d isto rt o r e x a g g e ra te a p art, or m a k e it u nduly p ro m in en t, w ith re sp e c t to the rest. T h e re is th u s the possibility o f g e ttin g it o u t o f p ro p o rtio n to th e to tal situ atio n . T h e p o sitiv e a sp e c t o f the w h olists is th at w h en c o n sid e rin g in fo rm atio n or a situ a tio n th ey se c the w hole “ p ic tu r e ” . T h e y arc “b ig p ictu rc p e o p le ” .

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

57

Consequently, they can have a balanced view and can see situations in their overall context. T h is m akes it less likely that they will have extrem e views or attitudes. T h e negative aspect o f the wholists is that they find difficulty in separating a situation into its parts. T h e positive aspect o f the analytics is that they can analyze a situation into its parts, which allows them to get quickly to the heart o f any problem. They are good at seeing sim ilarities and detecting differences. However, the negative aspect is that they may not be able to get a balanced view o f the whole, and they may focus on one aspect o f a situation to the exclusion o f the others and enlarge it out o f proportion.

V e rb a l-lm a g e r y D im e n s io n . T h is style has two fundam ental effects that have im plications for behavior: the way inform ation is repre­ sented and the external-internal focus o f attention. Representation affects the characteristic m ode in which people represent inform ation during thinking, verbally or in images. For instance, when individuals read a novel they can represent the actions, happenings, and scenes in terms o f word associations or by constructing a m ental picture of what they read. Ju st as it is possible to set down thoughts on paper in two ways— in words or in sketches— so is it possible to think in those two modes. People can think in words, or they can think in terms o f mental pictures or im ages. O n this dim ension people may be categorized as being of three types: verbalizers, bimodals, or imagers. Verbalizers consider the inform ation they read, see, or listen to, in words or verbal associations. Bimodals, in the middle, use either mode o f representation. Imagers experi­ ence fluent, spontaneous, and frequent m ental pictures either o f represen­ tations o f the inform ation itself or o f associations with it. T h e style thus affects the processing o f inform ation and the m ode of representation and presentation that an individual prefers, and this is likely to affect the types o f task they find easy or difficult. How ever, all groups can use either m ode o f representation if they m ake the conscious choice. For exam ple, verbalizers can form im ages if they try, but it is not their normal, habitual mode. External-Internal focus, the second effect, influences the focus and type of an individual’s activity: externally and stim ulating in the case o f verbalizers, and internally and more passive in the case o f imagers. This has im plications for social relationships and for the type o f environm ent people will be content in. For verbalizers the focus is outward to others and they prefer a stim ulat­ ing environm ent. They see the social group as an extension o f them selves and are socially aware. For imagers, the focus is more inward, and they are more passive and content with a more static environm ent. They view the

RIDING

58

social group as more distant from them selves, and they may be less socially aware.

C o m p le m e n ta ry -U n ita ry S tyle s. A person’s cognitive style is a com bination o f his or her position on each o f the two dim ensions. T hese dim ensional characteristics of a person may either com plem ent or duplicate one another, depending on the characteristics. T h e style characteristics may be put in order according to the degree to which, in com bination, they offer com plem entary facilities. For exam ple, consider an analytic-im ager. Because the analytic aspect o f his or her style does not provide an overview o f a situation, he or she could attem pt to use the whole-view aspect o f imagery to supply it. If another person was a w holist-verbalizer, then because the wholist facility does not support analysis, he or she m ight use the “analytic” property o f verbalization as a substitute. By contrast, a w holist-im ager only has a whole facility available, with no style that may be pressed into service to provide an analytic function. T he style groups from com plem entary to unitary may be ordered as: w holist-verbalizer, analy ticimagcr, interm cdiate-verbalizer, interm ediate-im ager, wholist-bim odal, analytic-bimodal, intermediate-bimodal, analytic-vcrbalizcr, wholist-imager.

Sty le an d B ehavior Style has been found to be related to a range o f observed behaviors, including learning, m otor skills, social behavior, behavior problems, and stress and aspcct o f occupation. T h e relations betw een cognitive style and these behaviors arc reviewed.

S t y le a n d L e a r n in g In this section I consider the effect o f style on learning in terms o f the structure, mode o f presentation, and type o f content o f the material.

T h e S tru c tu re O j the M a te ria l. Several studies have shown that an individual’s position on the w holist-analytic dim ension interacts with the way learning m aterial is structured in its effect on perform ance. Douglas and Riding (1993) found that when 11-year-old pupils were presented with a prose passage for recall, wholists did best when the title o f the passage was given before the passage was presented, rather than at the end, although this had little cffcct for analytics. T h is was attributed to the providing to the wholists, who are less able to structure m aterial, a title at the beginning to give som e organization to the m aterial.

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

59

Riding and Sadler-Sm ith (1992), with 14- to 19-year-old students, com pared perform ance on three differently structured versions o f com put­ er-presented instructional m aterial. T h e three versions presented that same inform ation about five topics. Version L com prised large steps with large chunks o f verbal inform ation and line diagram s. Version O comprised small steps o f verbal inform ation interspersed with pictorial or diagram m atic contcnt, plus overviews at the start, before and after each topic, and at the end. Version S was as Version O with small steps but minus the overviews. T h e four styles were grouped as complementary (w holist-verbalizer and analytic-im ager) and unitary (w holist-im ager and analytic-vcrbalizcr). In terms o f the recall efficiency, different ways o f structuring the m aterial had a large effect on perform ance for the two com plem entary style groups, with the sm all-step form at being m ost effective. For the unitary groups, the structure had relatively little effect, with the groups performing in an “average” m anner irrespective o f the format. G ender was not included as a variable in this, or the previous, study. Sadler-Sm ith and Riding (in press) used a questionnaire approach to study instructional preferences in university business studies students. In terms o f locus o f control, the analytics preferred to have control them selves rather than to be controlled, whereas the wholists had no preference. There was no significant gender effect. Riding and A l-Sanabani (1998) with 10- to 15-year-old pupils attending a Yemeni school in the U nited Kingdom , exam ined the effcct on reading com prehension o f dividing a one-page textual narrative into three para­ graphs, each with a subheading. T h is im proved com prehension and the degree o f the facilitating cffcct was related to the w holist-analytic style and gender o f the student. For male and fem ale wholists there was a similar im provem ent with the addition o f format structure, whereas for analytics the m ales improved more than the fem ales. A possibility is that female analytics prefer to im pose their own structure and find externally im posed structure less helpful than do males. Certainly, the analytic fem ales did well without the external structure. Sim ilar effects were found for conditions where a summary was added. Riding and Grimley (2000) noted with 11-year-old pupils that, with inform ation in text m ode, the patterns o f recall for the m ales and fem ales were similar. W ith the inform ation available from text and pictures, the males increased in recall from wholist through to analytic, whereas the fem ales declined with the worst perform ance by the analytics. T h e require­ m ent to integrate the parts o f the pictorial and the textual inform ation is more difficult for the male wholists and the fem ale analytics. T his may have been particularly so because the pictures were in the form o f cartoons and their content was by way o f analogy, from which deductions had to be

60

RIDING

made, rather than a sim ple presentation o f inform ation in a literal form. T h is result accords with that of Riding and Read (1996), who found male wholists and female analytics to be more com fortable in situations that are closed and do not require divergent thinking. T h ere is evidence that the structure o f the m aterial to be learned interacts particularly with the w holist-analytic style dim ension. Analytics need a large viewing window com pared to wholists, when dealing with inform ation (Riding & Grimley, 1999). Individuals o f complem entary style (w holist-verbalizers and analytic-im agers) are influenced by the step size o f the learning m aterial and improve from large to small steps, whereas those of unitary style (analytic-verbalizers and wholist-im agers) are not affected. There is an interaction between gender and w holist-analytic style in the facilitating effect o f structure in the form o f both headings and overviews, such that these m ost help m ale analytics and female wholists. It may be that male wholists and fem ale analytics prefer to form their own structure of m aterials and find difficulty in copying with externally im posed organiza­ tions. M ore work is needed to clarify the gender and w holist-analytic interactions with structure.

M o d e o f P re se n to Iio n . Tw o m odes o f presenting inform ation arc available: the verbal and the pictorial. Riding and Ashm ore (1980) with 11year-old pupils gave groups o f verbalizers and imagers (as assessed by the earlier V erbal-im agery C od e T est) either a verbal or a pictorial version of the sam e inform ation. Verbalizers were superior with the verbal mode and imagers with the pictorial mode. W ithin the instructional situation, al­ though purely verbal presentation is often an option, an alternative purely pictorial version is rarely an option as som e words are also required. However, it is usually possible to present inform ation in both modes. Riding and D ouglas (1993), along with 1 5 -to 16-year-old students, found that the com puter presentation o f m aterial in a text-plus-picture form at facilitated learning by imagers com pared with the sam e content in a text-plus-text format. A further finding was that at recall in the tcxt-plus-picturc condition 50% o f the imagers used illustrations as part o f their answers com pared with only 12% o f the verbalizers. Riding and Read (1996) individually questioned 12-year-old pupils about their preferences for mode o f working and social context. For the higher ability pupils, imagers, particularly if they were wholists, said they used less writing and more pictures than verbalizers, especially where the subject allowed. T h e tendency by im agers to use pictures, and verbalizers to use writing, increased with ability. T h ere was evidence that lower ability pupils were m ore constrained by the expected form at o f the subject than were those o f higher ability.

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

61

Riding and W atts (1997) told female 16-year-old pupils that three versions o f a sheet giving inform ation on study skills had been prepared for them, and that each sheet contained the sam e inform ation but that the form ats were different. Pupils were then invited to take one o f the versions from the teacher’s desk. T h e versions were unstructured verbal (para­ graphs, without headings), structured verbal (paragraphs, each with a clear heading), and structured pictorial (paragraphs, each with a clear heading, and a pictorial icon depicting the activity placed in the left m argin). N o pupils chose the unstructured-verbal version. For the two structured versions, with the verbal-im agery dim ension m ost verbalizers selected the verbal version and m ost o f the imagers selected the pictorial version. W ith the w holist-analytic dim ension m ost wholists selected the pictorial version, perhaps because it looked more “lively,” whereas m ost analytics selected the more “neat and tidy” verbal version. Studen ts are attracted to, and prefer to select, m aterials that suit their own style. Riding and Grimley (1999) considered the learning from C D -R O M m ultim edia instructional m aterials o f science topics by 11-year-old pupils. Here three m odes o f presentation were used: picture plus sound (PS), picture plus text (PT ), and picture plus text plus sound (P T S). W ith P TS the males did the best in the noncomplementary groups (analytic-verbalizers and w holist-im agers), and the females did the best in the analytics (verbalizers and im agers). W ith PS and PT, there was reversal with gender, which was related to whether the styles were complem entary (as with w holist-verbalizers and analytic-im agers) or unitary (as with analyticverbalizers and w holist-im agers). PS involved “ look and listen” (two channels), whereas P T involved “look” only (a single channel). For the w holist-verbalizers and analytic-im agers (the com plem entary groups), m ales did better on PS than on P T ; this was reversed for females. For the unitary groups, the w holist-im agers and analytic-verbalizers, the tendency was the opposite, where male wholist-im agers were superior on PT, and fem ales w holist-im agers on PS. T ak en overall, imagers generally learn best from pictorial presentations, whereas verbalizers learn best from verbal presentations. However, there is also evidence o f an interaction involving gender, and although the prccisc nature o f this is not yet clear, it is likely to be o f practical im portance. W ith com plem entary groups, the m ales were best on separate channels o f pictures and words, whereas the fem ales were best on the single channel of pictures and words. W ith the unitary groups, the m ales were best on a single channel, whereas the fem ales were best on separate channels. T his hints at a fundam ental gender difference in inform ation processing that also involves style.

62

RIDING

T y p e o f C o n te n t. W ith the type o f content o f learning m aterial, studies o f 11- and 12-year-old pupils showed that im agers recall highly visually descriptive text better than acoustically com plex and unfamiliar text, whereas the reverse holds for verbalizers (Riding & Calvey, 1981; Riding & Dyer, 1980). Initial reading perform ance, which is obviously a verbal task, has been found to be superior in vcrbalizcrs. Riding and Anstcy (1982) with 7-year-old children assessed reading accuracy and com prehen­ sion and found that both declined from verbalizer to imager. Riding and M athias (1991) with 11 -year-old children observed that for reading accu ra­ cy this effect was still pronounced for wholists, where w holists-verbalizers showed m uch greater proficiency at reading com pared to w holists-im agers. Similarly, with second language learning, which is also verbal in nature, Riding et al. (2000) asked the second-language teachers o f 12-year-old pupils to rate the general second-language ability o f their pupils on a 5point scale from very poor to very good. T h e pupils studied either French or Germ an. O verall, the ability o f fem ales was rated higher than that o f males, and for the verbal—imagery dim ension, verbalizers were superior to imagers. In terms o f content type, then, individuals appear to learn best when inform ation can be readily translated into their preferred verbal-im agery mode o f representation. C o n te n t a n d In te llig e n c e . Riding and A grell (1997) with 14- to 16-year-old C an ad ian students found an interaction between style and intelligence in their effect on school achievem ent, such that style was more critical where pupils were o f lower ability and the subject m atter did not ideally suit their style. For instance, the difference in perform ance between high- and low-ability pupils was greater for the analytic-im agers than for the analytic-verbalizers, where in the latter case that style was more naturally suited to learning academ ic subjects. Riding and Sharratt (2000) considered perform ance in English, m athe­ m atics, and science in the G eneral C ertificate o f Secondary Education (G C S E — the British public exam ination at 1 6 + years). T h e sam ples were also assessed on a test o f reasoning ability (N ational Foundation for Educational Research N on-verbal T e st D H ). Riding and Sharratt found an interaction between reasoning ability and verbal-im agery style in their effect on overall G C S E performance. For low reasoning ability, verbalizers did less well than imagers, whereas for high reasoning ability, the verbalizers did better than the imagers. T h e reasons for this shift are not yet clear. By way o f speculation, because m uch schoolwork has a verbal em phasis, verbalizers will find the mode o f presentation and the medium used for expression more to their liking than imagers. However, it may be that verbalizers o f low reasoning ability, when finding the work difficult, will give

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

63

up more readily than imagers, because verbalizers are less tolerant o f boredom than arc imagers. A s reasoning ability increases to a m oderate level, verbalizers find the work easier and hence more interesting, and so they becom e more tolerant and they then equal the perform ance of imagers. W hen reasoning ability rises to a high level, verbalizers exceed the perform ance o f imagers, because o f the m atch between their style and the m ode and type o f content o f the subject m atter taught at G C S E level. If this were so, the low-reasoning-ability verbalizers could be helped by teaching the material more slowly and attractively to ensure understanding and attention. T h e rationale here is that if the task is easier, those o f lower ability will be able to do it. Imagers o f all levels o f ability will be aided by more use o f their preferred m ode o f representation.

S t y le a n d M o t o r S k ills If cognitive style m onitors internal m echanism s that control external actions, it is reasonable to expcct that style would be related to m otor perform ance. Riding and A l-Salih (2000), along with 14' to 18-year-old secondary school pupils, explored the relation between style and m otor skills and sports perform ance. T h e pupils did a battery o f m otor skills tests. A factor analysis indicated four skills factors: bodily m ovem ent, interactive skills, m echanical skills, and aiming. A ll o f these except the m echanical skills showed a significant relation to style. W ith bodily m ovem ent the com plem entary styles (wholist-verbalizer and analytic-im ager) did better than the unitary styles (w holist-im ager and analytic-verbalizer). W ith interactive skills unitary styles were superior for m ales and com plem entary styles were superior for females. W ith aiming, analytic-im agers were best and w holists-verbalizers were worst. Each pupil was rated on a 5-point scale by their teachers on perform ance in rugby, soccer, and cricket for the boys; and hockey, netball, and tennis for the girls. H ere there was a significant style effect for tennis with imagers doing best, but not for the team games.

S t y le a n d S o c ia l B e h a v io r . Cognitive style influences the m anner in which an individual thinks about and represents social incidents and situations.

W h o lis t-A n a ly tic S ty le a n d S o c ia l B e h a v io r. Riding (1991b) argued the w holist-analytic style is reflected socially in such dim ensions as being dependent-self-reliant, flexible-consistent, realistic-idealistic, and vague-organized. W holists tend to the former and analytics to the latter. Riding and W right (1995) asked undergraduate students living in universi­

64

RIDING

ty flats with typically five per flat to rate their flatm ates in terms o f personal characteristics. T h e wholists were perceived as more assertive, hum orous, and helpful, whereas the analytics were rated as more shy. In addition, the degree o f unity in each flat was assessed by using statem ents such as, “Relations in my accom m odation have been harm onious.” W hen com ­ pared with the m ajority style in each flat, the order o f reported unity from least to highest was: analytic-im ager, wholist-im ager, analytic-verbalizer, w holist-verbalizer. This order was as expected because analytics are likely to be m ore separate than wholists and imagers arc likely to be more inward and socially isolated than verbalizers.

V e rb a l- lm a g e ry S ty le a n d S o c ia l B e h a v io r. Riding et al. (1995) asked 12-year-old pupils to rate the children in their class in terms o f being active (outgoing, lively, hum orous), m odest (shy, quiet), and respon­ sible (serious, patient). They found verbalizers scored highest on active, bim odals highest on m odest, and responsibleness increased from verbalizer to imager. S t y le a n d B e h a v io r P r o b le m s Riding (1991b) suggested that for the W holist-analytic dim ension, wholists arc likely to be unstructured, global, and inclusive in their thinking. T h is may m anifest itself as lacking behavioral control. By co n ­ trast, analytics are likely to be structured but socially separate, resulting in behaviors that arc generally more controlled but that may exhibit frustra­ tion and intensity, and they may be socially unaware and exclusive. O n the basis o f such a consideration o f social behavior, it m ight be anticipated that the school conduct behavior o f wholists would be less good than that of analytics because wholists are more outgoing and less well organized with respect to both self-control and learning. Several studies have supported this view. Riding and Burton (1998) asked the teachers o f 14- to 16-year-old secondary school pupils to rate the conduct behavior o f their pupils on a 5point scale from very poor to very good. They found that fem ales were rated higher than m ales with little variation with the w holist-analytic style. W ith the m ales, the wholists were rated poorest in behavior, and the analytics were slightly poorer than the interm ediates. Rayner and Riding (1996) considered pupils aged 15 to 17 years attending a truancy unit becausc o f their previous failure to attend school. T he percentage o f pupils in the w holist-analytic dim ension style groupings as defined by a com parison sam ple o f pupils attending m ainstream secondary schools was wholists, 41% ; interm ediates, 53% ; and analytics, 6%. Riding and C raig (1998)

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

65

noted the style characteristics o f boys aged 10 to 18 years referred to residential special schools bccausc o f behavior problems. They found that their style on the w holist-analytic dim ension was skewed to the wholist end o f the continuum relative to a com parison sample o f male pupils in ordinarysecondary schools. T h e percentages o f each style grouping in the special schools were wholist, 46% ; interm ediate, 34% ; and analytics, 20%. In a further study o f m ale 11- to 16-year-old students in special schools, Riding and C raig (1999) found similar results with the m ajority style group being w holist-verbalizer and the minority analytic-im agcr. Finally, Riding and Wigley (1997, p. 385) with 17- to 18-year-old College o f Further Education students found that m ales were more psychotic than females, and that for the m ales wholists were more psychotic than analytics. C ook (1993, p. 87) noted that psychoticism is related to social deviance. It is interesting to contrast the United Kingdom findings with those of Riding and A l-H ajji (2000) for pupils in the Kuwaiti educational system, which is formal and controlled. T h e conduct and learning behavior o f 15to 18-year-old Kuwaiti secondary school pupils were assessed by their tcachcrs. Here, conduct behavior did not vary m uch with style, whereas learning behavior was significantly lower for analytics than for wholists, and for im agers than for verbalizers. T h e results suggest the interaction am ong behavior, attainm ent, and style may depend on the nature o f the edu ca­ tional system. Riding and Baker (2000) considered the school attendance o f pupils within socially poor areas over their 5 years o f secondary schooling from 11 to 16 years. They found that the worst attendance was by verbalizers for both m ales and fem ales, with the best attendance by imagers for the males and bim odals for the fem ales. In summary, problem behavior is more likely in m ales than in females, and with respect to cognitive style, in wholists and verbalizers.

S t y le a n d O c c u p a t io n a l Is s u e s Style studies have shown findings o f relevance to career selection and employment. T h ese include decision making, anxiety, optimism, and perceived level o f stress.

S ty le a n d D e c is iv e n e s s . Riding and Wigley (1997) assessed the degree o f decisiveness for a sam ple o f 16- to 18-ycar-old College o f Further Education students in terms o f their position on a dim ension of: very indecisive, indecisive, decisive, impulsive. Here, the relevant aspect o f style appears to be the wholist to analytic facility, in which the style groups may be ordered from extrem e wholist to extrem e analytic: w holist-im ager,

66

RIDING

wholist—bim odal, interm ediate—imager, w holist-verbalizer, interm ediatebim odal, analytic-im ager, interm ediate-verbalizer, analytic-bim odal, analytic-verbalizer. T h ose who are m ost analytic (i.e. analytic-verbalizers) are less decisive because they are inclined to weigh all the possibilities before m aking a decision. T h ose who are very wholist (i.e., w holist-im agers) can see a broad perspective and the relevance o f all aspects o f the situation in an overall balance, and they arc not decisive. People who are more decisive lack the constraint o f the high analytic on the one hand, and the overall wholist or balanced perspective, on the other, and this includes those who arc w holist-verbalizer, intcrm ediatc-bim odal, and analytic-im ager. This area needs further exam ination within practical contexts to see what are the effects on learning perform ance and problem solving. T here could be im plications for m anagem ent.

S ty le a n d N e u ro tic is in . Riding and Wigley (1997) also found that neuroticism , as assessed by the EPQ -R, was highest for w holist-verbalizers and analytic-im agers and lowest for analytic-verbalizers and w holistimagers. T o facilitate the interpretation o f the findings for neuroticism , they ordered the styles from complem entary to unitary. N euroticism was found to be highest for the com plem entary styles (i.e., w holist-verbalizer and analytic—imager) and lowest for those that are not. A possible reason for this is that wholists who lack any analytic facility can see all aspects o f a situation in balance and do not focus just on some negative aspects. In reality, nothing is totally bad, only som e parts, and this style evens out the bad with the good. Similarly, those who have only an analytic facility have everything ordered and under control and perceive less stress. T h ose who seem m ost susceptible to neuroticism are those with the facility to switch between the two m odes. T h e observed level o f neuroticism is likely a com bination o f the level o f the physiological sourcc o f anxiety, which is then m oderated by cognitive style so that for the complem entary styles it is increased and for the unitary styles it is decreased. O p tim is m V e rs u s P e s s im is m Individuals may be described in terms o f w hether they tend to optim ism or pessim ism . W hether optim ism pessimism is a separate dim ension or related to stability-ncuroticism is not clear (W iebe & Sm ith, 1997, pp. 9 0 3 -9 0 5 ). In the present context, optim ism is used to describe an inclination to interpret situations positively rather than negatively. In a study o f style and optim ism (Riding & Rayner, 1998, p. 126), 40 M ethodist C hurch mem bers were asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 the threat or com fort they felt when they read each o f 25 verses taken from the Bible. Exam ples o f the verses were: comfort, “T h e Lord is my shepherd, I shall not w ant” (Psalm 23:1); threat, “T h e w ages o f sin is d eath ” (Rom ans 6:23). T h e tendency to perccive verses as threatening rather than

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

67

com forting was found to be related to verbal-im agery style and gender. T h e male im agers and the fem ale verbalizers were more inclined to sec the negative aspects o f verses and could be described as more pessimistic than the male verbalizers and the female imagers. A s described in the following discussion, a similar pattern has been found for perceived stress.

P e rc e iv e d L e v e l o f S t r e s s Borg and Riding (1993) gave sam ple M altese secondary school teachers a questionnaire where the items were labeled from “no stress” to “extrem e stress” and scored from zero to four. Four subscales o f sources o f stress were derived from the inventory: pupil m isbehavior, poor working conditions, poor staff relationships, and time pressures. Borg and Riding found that the male imagers and female verbalizers reported the greater overall stress. T h ese findings were similar to those obtained in the study o f the reaction to Bible verses. It may be that those who report the greater stress are more pessim istic. Borg and Riding also observed that the am ount o f stress was consistent with the expectation of wholists being more open and people orientated and analytics being more structured and organized. T h e wholists reported more stress from time pressures and staff relations, whereas the analytics reported more stress from pupil m isbehavior and working conditions. Riding and W heeler (1995) in a study o f nurses found that verbalizers had a significantly higher em ploym ent grade than imagers. Further, they found evidence that the type o f nursing that most suited nurses was related to their style. Using a questionnaire, a suitability index was obtained from (Job Satisfaction — Perceived Stress), and this was com pared with style and type o f nursing. T h e styles with the highest satisfaction indices were analytic-verbalizer for general nursing, intermediate-bimodal for orthopaedic nursing, and w holist-im ager for psychiatric nursing. T h e lowest indices were w holist-im ager for general nursing, analytic-im ager for orthopaedic nursing, and interm ediate-verbalizer for psychiatric nursing. G eneral nurs­ ing is probably dynam ic, requiring conscientious activity; orthopaedic nursing is slower, needing patience: and psychiatric nursing is dem anding, benefiting from tolerance. This approach has relevance to other occupations. In summary, findings o f style have im plications for employment. T hese include decision m aking, level or anxiety, optim ism and stress, as well as occupational suitability.

TOWARD A MODEL OF ST Y LE Evidence suggests the construct o f cognitive style possesses a degree of validity because it is distinctly different from other established constructs such as intelligence, personality, and gender. Furtherm ore, it has been

R ID IN G

68 EXTERNAL WORLD

COGNITIVE INPUT AND OUTPUT

COGNITIVE CONTROL

PRIMARY SOURCES

F IG . 3 .3 .

Cognitive control model.

found to be related to a range of behaviors to a degree that has practical rclcvancc. Cognitive style now needs to be seen in the context of the other variables with a view to developing a model of their operation and interaction. Riding (1997) proposed a tentative model called the cognitive control model. This model is shown in Fig. 3.3. A t the inm ost level several underlying primary sources comprise the memory of individuals’ past experiences and knowledge, probably their reasoning ability, their underlying personality sources, and their gender. Some of the personality sources have been given tentative names. The next level is that o f cognitive control, which comprises the fundamental dimensions of style: wholist-analytic and verbal-imagery. It provides the organizational and representational interface between the internal sources and the external environment, and it imposes on the learning and response its own structure and form. The ways the wholist-analytic dimension and the verbal-imagery dimension may affect attitude and behavior have been discussed by Riding (1991b, 1994). The working memory processing system, which gives meaning to the incoming information, operates at the input level. The performance of this may be considered a significant contributor to fluid intelligence (cf. Kline, 1991). A computer-presented displacement method for assessing this is the Information Processing Index (Riding, 1999). Learning strategies are at the ou tput level. Strategies are ways that may be learned and developed to cope with situations and tasks, and particularly methods o f using styles to make the best of situations that

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

69

are not ideal. T h ese will have been developed, for instance, by the individual sensing that certain m odes are easier to use, recognizing a learning preference, and deciding to “ translate” new incom ing inform ation into that representation. A t this level there is also the cognitive response “set" that influences social behavior. T h e perception o f experiences is probably m oderated by the cognitive control level in interaction with the cognitive history and the primary personality sources. Som e support for the m odel com es from the finding of interactions between style and other individual difference constructs. For instance: between intelligence and style in affecting academ ic achievem ent (Riding & Agrell, 1997; Riding & Sharratt, 2000), between gender and style in affecting learning (Riding &. A l-Sanabani, 1998; Riding &. Grimley, 1999), and between personality sources and style in affecting social behavior (Riding & Wigley, 1997).

CONCLUSION T h e notion o f cognitive style, as consisting of two fundam ental dim ensions, as assessed by the C S A approach, is supported by evidence that the dim ensions are independent o f one another and gender, they are separate from intelligence, cognitive style fulfills the requirem ent for the distinction between style and ability, cognitive style is independent o f personality, and cognitive style has physiological correlates. Furtherm ore, the observed relation between the dim ensions and behavior are consistent with the view that the w holist-analytic dim ension is concerned with organization and the verbal-im agery dim ension is concerned with representation. T h e utility of the construct is further supported by its being shown to be related to a range o f practical behaviors, such as learning perform ance, m otor skills, social behavior, problem behavior, stress, and occupational satisfaction. C ogn i­ tive style is seen within the co ntext o f the other individual difference variables and may represent an interface betw een them and the external world. T h e next challenge is to clarify the interactions between style and the other variables in their effects on behavior and educational performance. A lthough more work rem ains to fully understand style, practical applica­ tion to education is facilitated by the use o f the Learning Enhancement Programme (Riding & Rayner, 1995, 1999), which raises the aw areness o f teachers o f their own cognitive style and o f ways to broaden their teaching styles to suit the needs o f a wider range o f pupils. Furtherm ore, details of practical style approaches to helping pupils with behavioral and learning difficulties is given in Riding and Rayncr.

RIDING

70

R EFEREN CES Borg, M. G ., & Riding, R. J. (1993), T each er stress and cognitive style. British Journal of Educational Psyclwbgy, 63, 271-286. Brumby, M. N . (1982). C onsistent differences in cognitive styles shown for qualitative biological problem-solving. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 52, 244-257. C attell, R .B., &. W arburton, F. W . (1967) Objective personality and motivational tests. Urbana, IL: University o f Illinois Press. C oan, R. (1974). The optimal personality: An empirical cuid theoretical analysis. New York: Colum bia University Press. C ook, M. (1993). Levels o f personality. London: Cassell. Delaney, H. D. (1978). Interaction o f individual differences with visual and verbal elaboration instructions. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 70, 306-318. D ouglas, G ., & Riding, R. J. (1993). T h e effect o f pupil cognitive style and position o f prose passage title on recall. Educational Psychology, 13, 3 8 5-393. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Eysenck Personality Scales. London: H odder and Stoughton. Flexer, B. K., & Roberge, J. J. (1980). IQ , field-dependence-independence, and the developm ent o f formal operational thought. Journal of General Psychology, 103, 191-201. Fowler, W . (1980). C ognitive differentiation and developm ental learning. In H. Rees & L. Lipsitt (Eds.), Advances in child development and behaviour (pp. 163-206), Vol. 15. New York: A cadcm ic Press. G lass, A ., & Riding, R. J. (2000). EEG differences and cognitive style. Biological Psychology. (5 1 ,2 3 - 4 ). Harvey, O . J, H unt, D. E, and Schroder, H . M . (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organisation. N ew York: Wiley. Kagan, J., Rosm an, B., Day, D ., Albert, J., & Philips, W. (1964). Inform ation processing and the child: Significance o f analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78, 578. Klein, G. S. (1954). N eed and regulation. In M. P. Jon es, (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. ) Lincoln: University o f N ebraska Press. Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The psychometric view. London: Routledge. Kline, P. (1995). A critical review o f the m easurem ent o f personality and intelligence. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.)., International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 5 0 5 -5 2 4 ). N ew York: Plenum Press. Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: A n integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7, 251-268. Paivio, A. (1971). Styles and strategies o f learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148. Rayner, S., & Riding, R. J. (1996). C ognitive style and school refusal. Educational Psychology, 16, 4 4 5 -4 5 1 . Rayner, S., & Riding, R. J. (1997). Tow ards a categorisation o f cognitive styles and learning styles. Educatioiutl Psychology, 17, 5-28. Riding, R. J. (1991a). Cognitive styles analysis. Birmingham, England: Learning and Training Technology. Riding, R. J. (1991b). Cognitive styles analysis user manual. Birmingham, England: Learning and T raining Technology. Riding, R. J. (1994). Personal style awareness and personal development. Birm ingham , England: Learning and Training Technology. Riding, R. J. (1997). O n the nature o f cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, 29-50.

3.

N A T U R E AND E F F E C T S

71

Riding, R. J. (1999). Information processing index. Birmingham, England: Learning and Training Technology. Riding, R. J., & Agrell, C . (1997). T h e effect o f cognitive style and cognitive skills on school subject perform ance. Educational Studies, 23, 311-323. Riding, R. J., & A l-H ajji, J. (2000). Cognitive style and behaviour in secondary school pupils in Kuwait. Educational Research, 42, 29-42. Riding, R. J., & A l-Salih, N . (2000). Cognitive style and m otor skill and sports perform ance. Educational Studies, 26, 19—32. Riding, R. J., & A l-Sanabani, S. (1998). T h e effect o f cognitive style, age, gender and structure on recall o f prose passages. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 173-185. Riding, R. J., & A nstcy, L. (1982). V erbal-im agery learning style and reading attainm ent in eight-year-old children. Journal of Research in Reading, 5, 57-66. Riding, R. J., & A shm ore, J. (1980). V erbaliser-im ager learning style and children’s recall of inform ation presented in pictorial versus written form. Educational Studies, 6, 141-145. Riding, R. J., & Baker, G .(2 0 0 0 ). Cognitive style and school attendance in secondary school pupils. M anuscript subm itted for publication. Riding, R. J., & Buckle, C . F. (1990). Learning styles and training performance. Sheffield, England: Training Agency. Riding, R. J., & Burton, D. (1998). C ognitive style, gender and conduct behaviour in secondary school pupils. Research in Education, 59, 38-49. Riding, R. J., Burton, D., Rees, G ., & Sharratt, M. (1995). C ognitive style and personality in 12-year-old children. Britishjoum al o f Educational Psychology, 65, 113-124. Riding, R. J., & Calvey, I. (1981). T h e assessm ent o f verbal-im agery learning styles and their effect on the recall o f concrete and abstract prose passages by eleven-year-old children. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 59-64. Riding, R. J., & C heem a, I. (1991). C ognitive styles— A n overview and integration. Educational Psychology, I I , 193-215. Riding, R. J., & Craig, O . (1998). Cognitive style and problem behaviour in boys referred to residential special schools. Educational Studies, 24, 205-222. Riding, R. ]., & C raig, O . (2000). C ognitive style and types o f problem behaviour in boys special schools. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 69, 307-322. Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). T h e effect o f cognitive style and mode o f presentation on learning perform ance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297-307. Riding, R. J., & Dyer, V .A . (1980). T h e relationship betw een extraversión and verbalimagery learning styles in 12 year old children. Personality and Individual Differences, I, 27 3 -2 7 9 . Riding, R. J., G lass, A ., Butler, S. R., & Plcydell-Pearce, C . W. (1997). C ognitive style and individual differences in EEG alpha during inform ation processing. Educational Psycholo­ gy', 1 7 ,2 1 9 -2 3 4 . Riding, R. J., G lass, A ., & D ouglas, G. (1993). Individual differences in thinking: Cognitive and neurophysiological perspectives. Educational Psychology, 13, 2 6 7-279. Riding, R. J., & G rim ley, M . (1999). C ognitive style and learning from m ulti-m edia m aterials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 43-56. Riding, R. J., & G rim ley, M . (2000). Cognitive style, gender and learning in 11-year-old children. M anuscript subm itted for publication. Riding, R. J., & M athias, D. (1991). C ognitive styles and preferred learning m ode, reading attain m e n t and cognitive ability in 11-year-old children. Educational Psychology, I I ,3 8 3 - 3 9 3 .

72

RIDING

Riding, R. J., & Pearson, F. (1994)- T h e relationship between cognitive style and intelli­ gence. Educational Psychology, 14, 4 1 3-425. Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: D a­ vid Fulton. Riding, R. J. & Rayner, S. (2000). A cognitive style preventative intervention for improving behaviour and learning in secondary school pupils. M anuscript subm itted for publication. Riding, R. J., Rayner, S., & Banner, G. (2000). The effect o f cognitive style and gender on second-language learning performance in 12-year-old pupils. M anuscript subm itted for publication. Riding, R. J., & R ead, G. (1996). Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences. Educational Psychology, 16, 8 1 -106. Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Sm ith, E. (1992). Type o f instructional m aterial, cognitive style and learning perform ance. Educational Studies, 18, 3 2 3-340. Riding, R. J., & Sharratt, M. (2000). Cognitive style and secondary examination performance. M anuscript subm itted for publication. Riding, R. J., & W atts, M. (1997). T h e effect o f cognitive style on the preferred form at of instructional material. Educational Psychology, 17, 179-183. Riding, R. J., & W heeler, H. (1995). O ccupational stress and cognitive style in nurses: 2. British Journal o f Nursing, 4, 160-168. Riding, R. J., & W igley, S. (1997). T h e relationship between cognitive style and personality in further education students. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 379-389. Riding, R. J., &. W right, M. (1995). C ognitive style, personal characteristics and harmony in student flats. Educational Psychology, 15, 3 3 7-349. Sadler-Sm ith, E., & Riding, R. J. (in press). C ognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science. 27, 3 5 5-371. Spielberger, C . D. (1977). State and Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y -l. Palo A lto, C A : C onsulting Psychologists Press. W iebe, D. J., &. Sm ith, T . W . (1997). Personality and health: Progress and problems in psychosom atics. in R. H ogan, J. Johnson & S . Briggs (Eds.), Handbook o f personality psychology (pp. 8 9 1 -9 1 8 ). San Diego, C A : A cadem ic Press. W itkin, H. A ., O ltm an, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). M anual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo A lto, C A : C onsulting Psychologists Press.

4

Enhancing Learning: A Matter of Style or Approach? John Biggs The University of Hong Kong

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE Today, as in the past, it appears that of all the branches of psychology, differential psychology— the study of individual and group behavioral differences— is the most germane to discussion of the problems of education. —Jensen (1973, p. 1)

Twenty-five years later, Je n sen ’s view is one that many today would still support, although the nature o f the individual differences targeted would be different. Current interest is probably not now so much in powerful earthm overs like general intelligence or in more qualitatively differentiated creators o f com petence, such as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983) or emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996). T he debate between those Gardner mysteriously calls the “hedgehogs,” who like Jensen believe in a single function designating m ental power, and the “foxes,” who like G ardner believe there are several independent ways in which people m anifest their com petence, is an old one. A t the present time, the foxes might seem to be winning, the weight o f the evidence suggesting that the full range of

73

74

BIGG S

intelligent behaviors is not completely captured by any single general ability (Sternberg, 1996). A different version o f the latter argum ent— possibly by a decorticated fox, but the m ore stylish and clever racoon com es to mind— would refer not to different abilities, but to styles. T h e fact that individuals go about similar tasks in different ways, or do especially well in som e kinds o f tasks but poorly in others, may be addressed in terms o f their style o f operating in the world. Style refers to how you go about a task, ability refers to how well you do a task, and the correlation between style and abilities should be low. In Sternberg’s (1997) view, that correlation is often not low enough, so he m akes the distinction between styles based on differing patterns o f abilities (basically, cognitive styles and learning styles) and styles based on differing preferences for operating one way as opposed to another (thinking styles). Inform ation-processing styles (see the following discussion) also appear to be preference based. T h e educational im plications o f the different ability and style m odels are different, but all could agree with Jensen (1973) that the study o f individual differences is psychology’s greatest gift to education. O thers however would flatly disagree with the basic individual difference premise, and would argue instead that educators should focus on con textu ­ al rather than on within-child factors. In this view, educational theory is to be generated bottom up, not applied top down from psychology (Biggs, 1976a; Burden, 1992; Snow, 1974). A s Schon (1987) puts it, “Education is a soft slimy swamp o f real-life problem s” (p. 3) that m akes clean top-down applications hard to m ake. Educational research deals not with a linear, causal sequence o f independent and dependent variables, but with “clouds o f correlated ev e n ts. . . [that] mutually define each other" (Salom on, 1991, p. 13). Certainly, individual differences inhabit the clouds, but their nature and their effects arc continually changing. T h e events involved in teaching and learning form an interactive system, where the outcom es can not be satisfactorily accounted for by any one set o f factors, within or without the learner’s skin (Biggs, 1993a). Let us then add badgers to the menagerie, tenacious little anim als that stick close to the ground. Badgers take a systemic view o f the relation between theory and practice. Tw o badgers from Sw eden derived the concept o f approach to learning. M arton and Saljo (1976a, 1976b) asked students to read a short passage of text and report back what they had learned. They described two main ways the students learned. Som e used a “d eep” approach, others a “surface” approach, each approach being reliably associated with a particular kind of learning outcom e. T h is study is described in m ore detail later. T h e point is that these differences were not interpreted as individual differences be­ tween students, in classic psychological fashion, but as different kinds of relations between learner and task. A “d eep” approach describes an

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

75

adaptive relation, a “surface” approach describes a m aladaptive relation. It is thus m isleading to describe deep and surface approaches as learning “styles” that inhere in an individual (Schm eck, 1988), because, like a m arriage relationship, an approach to learning can exist only in the presence o f both parties: the learner and what is being learned, not the learner alone. T h e conceptual background and the rationale o f approaches to learning are different from those typifying the styles literature, and im plications for the enhancem ent o f learning are correspondingly different. A pproaches to learning have since becom e generic concepts in a new genre o f educational research, student approaches to learning (SA L ), referred to with badger-like territoriality as simply “student learning” research (Entwistle & W aterston, 1988). O ne stream o f this genre is based on the m etath eory o f co n stru ctivism (Biggs, 1996a), the oth er on phenom enography (M arton & Booth, 1997). Both stream s have been influential in the U nited Kingdom , in C ontinental Europe, in A ustralia, and lately in H ong Kong, both as a research paradigm and as the conceptual foundation for instructional design, staff developm ent, and quality en ­ hancem ent (Biggs, 1999; M arton &. Bowden, 1999; Prosser &. Trigwell, 1999). Stud en t learning research has so far had little effect in the United States, probably because the study o f students learning has already been staked out variously by the hedgehogs, foxes, and racoons in the psycho­ logical establishm ent. In sum, relations betw een theory and educational practice are for initial convenience expressed in an extension o f G ardner’s (1983) bestiary. H edgehogs and foxes rely on abilities, either general or specific, and racoons rely on style; all operate from an individual differences model, whereby people take their powers and their quirks to the tasks presented to them. Badgers are different. They stick close to the ground and take each task as it comes. In this chapter I elaborate on these relationships, with particular reference to the im plications for enhancing learning. I first consider styles, distinguishing am ong cognitive, learning, inform ation processing, and thinking styles, each o f which has som ething different to say about my focus question, the im provem ent o f learning. I then consider a different concept, but one that has been confused with that o f style: approach to learning.

THE CONCEPT OF ST Y LE C ognitive Style Cognitive styles were described by G ardner, H olzman, Klein, Linton, and Spence (1959) as developm entally stabilized cognitive controls that are

76

BIGG S

relatively invariant over situations. Originally thought to be independent of ability, it soon becam e clear that many styles were adaptive over a broad range o f tasks, especially school tasks. Exam ples are cognitive complexity (Harvey, H unt, & Schroder, 1961), reflection-im pulsivity (K agan, 1966), and field dependence-independence (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, &. Karp, 1962). In cognitive styles research, people are typically classified as high or low on a style according to their perform ance in a given criterion task or test, and then the highs are com pared with the lows on how they handle other tasks and characteristics. W itkin et al., for instance, used a startling tilting chair test (judging verticality o f a stim ulus when unknowingly in a tilted environm ent), a structurally similar task (judging verticality o f a rod in a tilted fram e), and the familiar (EFT) (the old child’s gam e o f “find as many anim als as you can in the picture” ; a hedgehog would find this test similar to a W echsler IQ subtest). T h u s was field dependence-indepen dence born, a construct that has been widely applied, and the m ethodology o f which led to the reporting o f many other such styles— too many in fact. It seem ed to have com e to the point where anyone who wished to “discover" a new style devised an interestingly different test situation and then com pared high and low scorers across a wide front to find in what other ways they might happen to differ from each other (by definition, the literature citations needed to support this statem ent would occupy more space than they would be w orth). Som e years ago I was reviewing the styles literature to draw educational im plications. I arrived at 18 different styles, then cam e across K ogan ’s (1971) review, which added another 8 to my list. I did not finish my review, convinced there had to be better ways o f looking at educationally relevant individual differences. In part as a reaction against this situation, the concept o f learning style appeared around the 1970s, which, unlike cognitive style, was focused on educational situations where the style concept was seen as m ost useful (Riding & C h e e m a , 1991). O ne m odel o f learning style that was particular­ ly influential was that o f Kolb (1976), who based his m odel on an “experiential” learning theory. H e proposed four abilities: to experience, to reflect, to conceptualize, and to experim ent. T h ese abilities are based on two bipolar dim ensions— con crete-abstract and active-reflective— that intersect to yield four quadrants. Learning styles are said to result from the particular quadrant in which person’s cognitive strengths lie: abstractactive yields the “converger”; concrete-reflective, the “diverger” ; ab stractreflective, the “assim ilator” ; and con crete-active, the “accom m odator” (the “ term inator” was left to Hollywood to invent). O ptim al perform ance in different academ ic subjects is said to require one style over another. T h e styles are m easured by the Learning Style Inventory LSI (Kolb, 1976), which H udak (1985) claim ed to be o f low reliability and of

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

77

questionable validity, claim ing “ the onus is to dem onstrate that the construct ‘learning style’ has reality and relevance” (p. 409). H oney and M umford (1986) produced the related Learning Style Q uestionnaire (L SQ ), renam ing the styles activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist. The L S Q is more reliable than K olb’s LSI and appears to measure abilities more directly (Allinson & Hayes, 1990). T he usefulness o f K olb’s form ulations rem ains to be properly established. O ne m ajor difficulty with all such styles is that they are conceived as bipolar (e.g., field dependent versus field independent) and as independent o f context. For exam ple, field-independent individuals are said to be able to separate relevant cues from compelling, irrelevant cues, and they are therefore good at finding simple figures em bedded in more com plex figures, but m anifest poor social skills, such as facial recognition. So what would you predict about the relative field depen dence-indepen dence o f the C hinese or the Ja p a n e se ’ T h a t living in highly collectivist societies they would be field dependent? O r because they use a character writing system relying on fine spatial discrim inations that they would be field independent? The answer is both, depending on the context (H ansen-Strain, 1989). T his may seem unsurprising, but if a style operates according to the context in which it is applied, it is no longer behaving as a general style, but as som ething else: in this case, m uch more like two separate abilities. In fact, cognitive and learning styles typically address ability-like dim en­ sions, which again is not surprising given that they arc derived from good and poor perform ance on set tasks. A n other problem is that they are used as typologies. T h u s, whereas a fox like Guilford (1967) refers to convergent and divergent abilities on tests o f which people may have high, medium, or low scores, a racoon like Kolb (1976) categorizes people as convergers or d ivergers. S u ch labeling is surely likely to increase the ch an ces o f m isclassification, stereotyping, and reification. Riding and C heem a (1991) tried to bring some consistency and economy to these form ulations by pointing out that both conceptually and em pirical­ ly cognitive and learning styles may be grouped into two main families: 1. holist-analytic, including inter alia field dependence-independence, reflection-impulsivity, and many others mentioned earlier; 2. verbalizer-imager, which reflects the preferred modality for handling data.

Further elaboration o f these styles may be found in Riding, this volume.

Information P ro c e ssin g S ty le s A nother m etaphor for construing the relation between the way students handle tasks and the nature o f the outcom e is derived from information

78

BIGG S

processing. T h e inform ation processing m odel is based on the assum ption that “ learning style assessed from a behavioral-process orientation is more likely to be useful than one based purely on a personality- or cognitive-style orientation” (Schm eck, Ribich, & Ram anaiah, 1977, p. 413). P ask’s (1976) m odel o f learning styles might be dealt with under this heading. He found that students in classification experim ents used two basic strategies: testing one limited hypothesis at a time (serialist) and testing more com plex hypotheses sim ultaneously (holist). W hen students habitually adopted a particularly strategy, he said they exhibited a style of learning. Versatile Studen ts who switched strategy as appropriate to the task were considered versatile, but those who stuck to one style to the exclusion o f the other displayed improvidence (excessive use o f the serialist strategy, resulting in the student being unable to relate elem ents to form a whole) or globetrotting (excessive use o f the holist strategy, resulting in prem ature conclusions or unjustified overgeneralizations). More commonly, writers in this tradition draw on levels o f processing theories o f memory, and research on cognitive and m etacognitive strategy use (M oreno & D iV esta, 1991; Schm eck et al., 1977; W einstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987). T h e em phasis is less on unchanging individual ch aracter­ istics as on the “on-line” cognitive strategies students use when handling tasks. T h ere is, however, some ambiguity due partly to the method o f operationalizing strategy use. Self-report questionnaires, which typically ask how students “usually” adopt this or that strategy or would “prefer” this or that strategy, alm ost inevitably access the dom ain o f personal traits, not the process dom ain required by cognitive theory (Biggs, 1993b). A ssessing traits rather than processes is also more likely when the instrum ents’ scales are derived from item analyses using m ethodologies from individual differ­ ence psychology, such as m aximizing within-scale item correlations. Learn­ ing process questionnaires o f this kind include the Inventory o f Learning Processes (ILP; Sch m eck ct al., 1977; Schm eck, Geisler-Brenstein, & Cercy 1991) and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (L A S SI; W einstein et al., 1987). Constructs accessed by questionnaires deriving from inform ation proc­ essing (IP) theory arc m eant to be uncontam inated by m otivation, affect, and context. M oreno and D iV esta (1991), for exam ple, claim that IP m echanism s are universal and “culture-fair,” a state obtained by defining item clusters from first-order factor analysis, a procedure said to exclude m otivational and attitudinal aspects and to access directly “inform ation processing control m echanism s" (p. 232). N evertheless, given the item wording and the m ethodology, the extent to which the dom ain addressed is on-line processing, or a personological trait, is an interesting question.

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

79

Thinking S ty le s Sternberg (1997) approached the problem o f accounting for individual differences in handling various tasks in a different way from that underlying the other styles (see also Sternberg, this volum e). H e thought it im portant to separate styles from abilities, a conflation that is virtually inevitable when com paring “highs” and “lows” on a perform ance task. He sees styles more as preferences for doing things in a certain way. Preferences are a m atter of degree, not o f category, so that individuals may have a profile o f styles, with one or more dom inant. Th u s, individuals with a particular style can achieve well if the task allows them to use their dom inant style. A person’s d om inant style m ight be expected to coincide with his or her dom inant abilities, but that may not be the case; when it is, perform ance is amplified, but when it is not, perform ance may not be good and the person will be frustrated. Sternberg is noncom m ittal about the origins o f styles, allowing the possibility o f genetic origins, but also saying they appear to be modified by socialization. Here is another im portant difference from classic learning styles: being modifiable, they are to an extent teachable. A lso unlike previous style theorists, Sternberg derives his styles top down, not from perform ance on a test. For this, he uses a com plex m etaphor o f m ental self-governm ent. Thus, like any civil governm ent, styles have functions: legislative, executive, and judicial; they have forms: m onarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic; they may operate on a global or a local level, be internal or external in cope, and liberal or conservative in leaning. Scales and constructs deriving from the governm ent model have good em pirical support (Sternberg, 1997). N evertheless, it is not clear why he chose this m etaphor and not another one. It is possible that a different m etaphor would produce a different com plex o f styles. Each o f the m etaphors o f a business corporation, or o f an army, or o f a tour operator, or o f a theatre com pany, could no doubt be unpacked to yield its own array o f empirically sustainable styles. Be that as it may, Sternberg has departed in several im portant ways from prevailing form ulations o f cognitive and learning styles, and in so doing has clarified the concept o f style itself and its relation to ability, and the educational im plications are richer for that.

ST Y L E S: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENHANCING LEARNING C ognitive, learning, and thinking styles fit C ronbach and Snow ’s (1977) definition o f an aptitude: a characteristic that prom otes a stu den t’s

80

BIGG S

perform ance in one kind o f environm ent as opposed to another. T h u s, if individuals high on the aptitude in question are m atched with the appropri­ ate context, or “ tre a tm e n t,” and individuals low on the aptitude arc given the treatm ent appropriate to them , it is win-win for everybody. This relation is formalized in the aptitude-treatment interaction (A T I). However, significant disordinal interactions o f this kind are rare, and providing for them is expensive if not im practical where more than one aptitude is addressed. A m ajor exception to this is the preferred m odality dim ension m entioned by Riding and C heem a (1991); there is am ple evidence that preferred modality interacts strongly with treatm ent (M oore & Sccvak, 1997; see also Riding, this volum e). Sternberg’s (1997) model is more flexible than the others because he explicitly allows that styles are teachable. T h is introduces the possibility o f m ism atching or m atching, student with teaching environm ent. M atching a teaching environm ent to the studen t’s dom inant style would be done to optimize perform ance. Su ch m atching might be with the teacher’s style, or with the styles optimally required by the task. In this connection, Sternberg (1994) stressed that assessm ent tasks should be varied, so that learning outcom es can be assessed in ways that are com fortable to m ost students. M ism atching a teaching environm ent would be done where a studen t’s style profile is low on a desirable style that could usefully be strengthened. In this case, the individual’s style repertoire is broadened and options for handling future com plexity arc increased. T h e aim here is not content learning, but increasing the potential range o f a stu d en t’s com petence. T h e difficulty with formally m atching or m ism atching student and environm ent is largely practical. W hich styles do you choose? D oes each high and low have its own workable teaching technology? T h e above applications refer to the formal m atching o f instructional or assessm ent conditions and style. Styles can also be used by teachers in their informal interactions with students. T ak e the following exchange from J o n e s (1968): Teacher: C an anyone tell me what infinity means? (silence). W hat is infinity? Billy: Uh. I think it’s like a box o f Cream ed W heat. Teacher: D on’t be silly! (p. 72)

C ream ed W heat boxes had a picture o f a m an holding up a box o f C ream ed W heat, which had a picture o f a m an ..........Som e knowledge about convergent and divergent abilities would have helped that teacher produce a more constructive and less dam aging response. T each ers should know that when some students respond in unexpected ways, they arc being

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

81

genuine, and not just willfully irritating. T h is exam ple also illustrates why learning outcom es might be assessed in several formats, as Sternberg (1994) suggested. In sum , then, cognitive and learning styles work on the assum ption that individual traits are fixed, or slightly modifiable, and that educational treatm ents have to work with or around them. Styles arc conceived essentially as not sensitive to context, being static “in-built features o f the individual” (Riding S tC h ee m a, 1991, p. 196). Sternberg’s (1997) thinking styles are less rigid in this respect, and his work has taken styles research ahead in that: 1. he gets away from the tyranny o f polarities (“high X vs. low X ”), which oversimplified a com plex area; 2. he suggests a more fruitful and com plex interaction with tasks; and 3. he is more optimistic in suggesting that exposure to other styles and tasks requiring nondom inant styles tasks will extend a person’s style repertoire.

Inform ation processing styles offer different im plications for enhancing learning. Inform ation processing theorists see the strategies as co ntext free and easily modifiable. T h at is, elaboration, imaging, rehearsal, and the like operate in m uch the sam e way w hether the m aterial being elaborated or rehearsed is being prepared for an exam ination or for a laboratory experi­ m ent; furthermore, these strategies can be taught. T h e m ajor im plication for enhancing learning is thus more interventionist than that deriving from the others styles, involving training students in the effective use of inform ation processing strategies (W einstein & Mayer, 1984). Strategy training has a considerable literature and on the whole has had som e success (H attie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996), but the extent to which strategy training can transfer across subject content, and across teaching and assessing contexts, is a m atter o f considerable debate. A n interesting counterexam ple to the usual results o f strategy training is a study by Ram sden, Beswick, and Bowden (1986), who trained first-year students from several faculties in a m etacognitively oriented course in generic study skills. T h e only m easurable result was an increase in surface or reproductive strategies. Stu d en ts’ perceptions o f course dem ands told them that the reproduction o f unintegrated detail was what was required o f them (incor­ rectly, but that was what they perceived), so they projected that perception onto the study skills. T h u s, it is not only a m atter o f teaching the “right” strategies, but m aking sure the stu den ts’ perceptions o f the teach inglearning context support the appropriate use o f the strategies concerned. T h e focus o f all these styles is on what students bring to the context, rather than on the interaction between student and context. A pplications from cognitive psychology suggest that learning takes placc in a vacuum ,

82

BIGG S

whereas co ntext has profound effects on learning and studying (Entwistle & W aterston, 1988). O thers have queried top-down applications from psychology to education on similar grounds, often with a suggestion that they might even be harmful (Biggs, 1976a; Burden, 1992; Snow , 1974; Taylor, 1994). A s many psychologists are likely to disagree profoundly with this, I shall for the rem ainder o f this chapter exam ine the argum ent using the conccpts o f styles, and approaches to learning, as representing two positions on this question o f using theory to enhance practice.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING T h e student learning paradigm is derived directly from studen ts’ percep­ tions o f co ntext and on “qualitative analyses o f stu den ts’ reports o f their own study processes” (Entwistle & W aterston, 1988, p. 258). Let us return to the original study by M arton and Saljo (1976a, 1976b). Studen ts were asked to read academ ic articles and to describe what they had learned and how they had gone about learning it. It was found that what students learned depended on what they intended to gain from the article. They generally expressed one o f two m ajor intentions: to understand the author’s intended m eaning or to recall key terms or memorize details as accurately as possible, in anticipation o f subsequent questions. Studen ts having the first intention processed the text for m eaning, focusing on them es and main ideas; those having the second, focused on words and sentences. T h ese intentions and m ethods in reading the text were called the deep and surface approaches, respectively. T h e deep approach was associated with abstract, high-level accounts o f the passage, with the details used for illustration and support, whereas the surface approach was associated with simple, factual statem ents about the details that overlooked the interconnections between them, thereby missing the auth or’s point. A s m entioned earlier, these findings were not seen as individual differences but as describing relations between students and task, an interpretation that led M arton to formulate his influential conceptual system he called phenomenography (M arton, 1981; M arton & Booth, 1997; see also M arton this volum e). But while phenom enography was gestating in Sw eden, Entwistle in England was using individual differences psychology to derive his A p ­ proaches to Study Inventory (A SI; Entwistle & R am sden, 1983), and Biggs in A ustralia was using inform ation processing theory to derive the Study Process Q uestionnaire (SP Q ; Biggs, 1987). T h u s, both Entwistle and Biggs started out from a top-down position but later cam e to change their perspective. W hy Biggs thought that to be necessary becom es apparent in the story o f the developm ent of the SP Q . W ork relating to the SP Q com m enced in the 1960s with the notion that since a great deal o f work had suggested sm all but consistent positive

4.

83

EN H AN CIN G LEA R N IN G

co rrelatio n s betw een personality factors and acad e m ic perfo rm an ce, p re­ d iction s o f p erfo rm an ce m igh t be b o o sted th rou gh the m ed iation o f stu d e n ts’ study beh avior (Biggs, 1970a; 1970b). Specifically, it w as su g g e st­ ed th at factors su ch as co gn itiv e style, personality, an d v alu es w ould differentially em ph asize co din g and reh earsal strategies (Biggs, 1969), resulting in d ifferent ways o f studying, w hich in turn w ould d eterm in e learning o u tco m e s. T h e 10-scale Stu d y B eh av io u r Q u estio n n aire (Biggs, 1976b) w as the resu lt o f th at work. A problem th at d ogged th at in stru m en t is one already n o ted in m u ch o f the style research ; there were too m any sc ales to be useful. P ractition ers sim ply did n ot know w here to start. W h ich o f the 10 ways o f stu dying are m ost relev an t to teach in g? W h ich lead to the m o st desirable o u tco m e s, an d u n d er w h at co n d itio n s? T h e underlying IP theory did n o t provide any fram ew ork w here su ch q u estio n s m ight be add ressed . A first step w as to red u ce the num ber o f sc ales. S e co n d -o rd er factor analysis p ro d u ced th ree h igher order factors. W h en item s w ere co rrelated w ith eac h o f th ese h igh er order facto r scores, th ose co rrelatin g highly with eac h facto r score fell in to two g rou ps— affective an d co gn itiv e— which form ed co n gru en t m o tiv e-strateg y co m b in ation s, like “will and sk ill” theory (Pintrich & d cG ro o t, 1990). T h is is the situ atio n th at M oren o and D iV e sta (1991) and IP th eorists tty to avoid, bu t o u t o f it arose the m o tiv e stratcgy co n gru en cc theory on w hich the S P Q w as b ased (Biggs, 1978), w ith three m o tiv e-stra teg y “ p a c k a g e s” (T ab le 4 .1 ). T h u s, if you w an t to avoid failure, play it safe and g et key facts and principles verbatim ; if you w ant to satisfy your curiosity, try to u n d erstan d w h at is going on; if you w ant to m axim ize grades, m ak e b e st use o f your tim e. It seem s fairly b an al w hen trim m ed to essen tials, bu t it led to m any in terestin g q u estio n s an d co n n ectio n s. T h e first h as to do w ith the stability o f w h at is being d iscu ssed here. It w as easy to label stu d en ts as utilizers if they scored high on the utilizing scale, bu t d oes th at d escrib e a ce rtain sort o f person, or a sim ply a cu rren t state o f

TA BLE 4.1 The Original Study Process Questionnaire: Dimensions, Motives, and Strategies Utilizing'

Internalizing1’

Achieving

Motive

Fear of failure

Intrinsic interest

Achievement

Strategy

Narrow target, rote learn

Maximize meaning

Effective use of space and time

'Later renamed “surface” ; see text. hLater renamed “deep” ; see text.

84

BIGG S

mind? Empirically, it is true that som e people go through their university careers with a constant m etagoal: to do enough work to avoid failure, for exam ple, and accordingly to develop a stable habit o f selectively rote learning academ ic m aterial, after which it’s party time. But it is also true that a good teacher can make the academ ic earth m ove, causing fear of failure to give way to burning curiosity. Com m only, a student does the minimum possible in a “fill-in” subject, saving the academ ic big guns for the im portant subjects. I am not talking here about a surface style with a low test-retest reliability. It m akes more sense to interpret what is happening here as a student who is working consistently and logically in an interpreted context. T h u s, although styles may be modifiable, essentially they act as indepen­ dent variables, with som e intrinsic stability; that is, they determ ine the events th at follow, so that if what follows is a com patible task, perform ance is good, and if it is an incom patible task, perform ance is poor. High and low SP Q scorers, on the other hand, are expected to change their m otives and strategies as their perceptions o f context change, and to affect, and be affected by, the context. T h e original SP Q , then, was a three-factor instrum ent, with m otive and strategy subscales on each, that were m eant to reflect prevailing intentions and perceptions, not personality traits. T h e similarity between the natures o f the utilizing and internalizing concepts and M arton and S aljo ’s (1976a, 1976b) surface and deep concepts was apparent. Furtherm ore, the m otive com ponent in the SP Q dim ensions paralleled M arton and S aljo ’s intentional com ponent in surface and deep approaches. Both M arton and Biggs (1987) were saying, as was Entwistle (1998), that the use o f strategies per sc was not the point; they were deployed in a context the student had appraised and toward which they had intentions, som etim es honorable, som etim es dishonorable. T h is coincidence was noted by adopting the “su rface-deep” term inolo­ gy, perhaps too hastily, because there was at least one im portant difference. A lthough M arton and Saljo used the term approach to learning to refer to what students actually do while handling the task, the SP Q and A S I questions asked students what they usually do while learning and studying. T h e term approach to learning has thus been used to refer to two things: (a) the processes adopted during learning, which directly determ ine the outcom e o f learning, and (b) the predispositions to adopt particular process­ es. Entwistle (1988) referred to the latter as “orientations” to learning, which are (usually) addressed by questionnaires such as the A S I and SP Q . However, the term orientation did not catch on, which was unfortunate because “ approach” was am biguous, referring to activities performed while learning a specific task, or to preferences for using certain classes of activities, or to both. In the interests o f clarity, I resurrect “orientation”

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

85

here to refer to preferences or predispositions to use a particular approach. T h e following descriptions apply equally well to approach and orientation. T h e surface approach is based on a motive or intention that is extrinsic to the real purpose o f the task. T h e task is seen as a hurdle to be cleared as expeditiously as possible, with as little time and effort invested as needed to m eet requirem ents. T h u s, low cognitive level activities are used when higher level activities are required to do the task properly. Rote learning content without understanding is one o f the m ost com m on ways o f doing this, but it is not the only way. Rote learning does not in itself m ean that the student is adopting a surface approach, because rote learning is quite appropriate when verbatim recall is required; it is “surface” when inappropriate, for exam ple when a student memorizes answers to previous exam i­ nation questions. T h e deep approach is based on a perceived need, such as intrinsic interest, to engage the task appropriately and meaningfully. T h e focus is thus on underlying m eaning, not on detail in itself; on m ain ideas, them es, and principles, rather than on conceptually unsupported specifics. A deep approach, using analogy, m etaphor, and the sort o f conceptual structure that enables the student to “ think high ,” requires a sound foundation of relevant prior knowledge. T h e particular strategies that are optim al for creating m eaning depend on the task in question, and the readiness with which these are activated depends on the quality o f teaching (discussed later). T h e essence o f the deep approach is that the student is engaging the task with learning processes that are appropriate to completing it satisfactorily. T h e achieving approach is based on the ego enhancem ent that com es out o f visibly achieving, in particular, by obtaining high grades. T h e focus is on the recognition gained from top perform ance. T h e main strategy is to organize time, working space, and syllabus coverage cost effectively seeking cues, using study skills, planning ahead, and allocating time according to task im portance. T h e achieving motive is related more to personality than to deep or surface m otives, although achieving strategies are regularly taught in study skills courses, often to good effect although there can be problems T h e three approaches arc associated with qualitatively different ou t­ com es (Biggs, 1979; M arton & Saljo, 1976a; Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; W atkins, 1983). T h e outcom es o f surface learning are always inappropriate as far as the task is concerned, as the underlying m eaning tends to become lost in lists o f unconnected detail. How ever, from the stu den t’s point o f view, the surface approach may produce desirable outcom es o f a different sort (e.g., the expenditure o f less effort in uninteresting or personally irrelevant subjects). T h e outcom es o f deep learning are likely to be high

86

BIGG S

quality and appropriate. T h e achieving approach, not unexpectedly, is associated with high grades (Biggs, 1987). T h e above generalizations are m ade with approach, not necessarily orientation, in mind. SP Q and A S I orientation scores correlate in these expected ways with outcom e if the im m ediate context is believed to activate the individual’s orientations. For exam ple, instructions to read for facts and details are m atched with stu den ts’ surface orientations, and instructions to read for understanding are m atched with studen ts’ deep orientations (Biggs, 1979). Similarly, a deep orientation correlates with perform ance in the stu den t’s favorite subject (Biggs, 1987). In these cases, orientation and outcom e are strongly related. O rientations are as m uch dependent variables as they are independent. A n orientation is not a stable trait o f the individual, as is implied when it is m istakenly identified with learning style, but it is instead a function of individual characteristics and the teaching context. In this, it is like m otivation. M otivation is not a substance, som ething students need to possess before teaching may proceed and without which learning is preempted and teaching impossible. G ood teaching creates learner m otivation. T h is is also true for deep learning, which is as m uch a product o f effective teaching as is m otivation. Both teacher and student are jointly responsible for the outcom e: the teacher for structuring the enabling conditions, the learner for engaging them. T h u s, an approach to learning describes the nature of the relation am ong student, context, and task. A pproaches in the S A L framework, then, are only m eaningful in context. They are related to student intentions and the existential teach­ ing-learning context on the one hand, and to the quality o f the learning outcom e on the other. In this, approaches are in contrast both to learning styles and to the constructs accessed by questionnaires deriving from IP theory.

APPROACHES TO LEARNING: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENIIANCING LEARNING A s approaches to learning are part o f the teaching-learning system, they need to be considered in conjunction with the system as a whole. T h e “ 3P ” m odel o f teaching and learning (Biggs, 1993a) is an attem pt to represent this system. T h e 3P model is generalized from Dunkin and Biddle’s (1974) original m odel o f teaching, which described three points at which teachingrelated factors are placed: presage, before teaching takes place; process, during teaching; and product, the outcom e o f teaching (hence the 3P m odel). T h e thrust here is on learning rather than on teaching, and because

4.

87

ENHANCING LEARNING

I am dealing with an interactive system, all com ponents affect all others, so the arrows flow in both directions. Presage factors are o f two kinds: 1. Student bused: the relevant prior knowledge the student has about the topic, interest in the topic, student ability, commitment to university, and so on. In the present context, I distinguish “hard” (not easily changed by teaching) from “soft” (relatively docile) student presage factors. H ard : abilities or intelligences, cognitive styles, learning styles, probably thinking styles, but the extent of their docility is unclear as yet. Soft: motivation, orientations to learning. 2. T each in g an d context based: aims and curriculum objectives, teaching and learning activities, assessment tasks and context, the expertise of the teacher, the “climate" or ethos of the classroom and of the institution itself, and so on. T h ese factors influence each other: the hard presage factors influence the soft, and the soft and the teaching context mutually interact at the process level to determ ine the student’s im m ediate learning-related activi­ ties, that is, their approaches to learning. M any interactions are possible. A student with little prior knowledge o f the topic will be unlikely to use a deep approach, even where the teaching is expert. A noth er student, who already

PRESAGE

FIG . 4.1.

PROCESS

T h e 3P m odel o f teaching and learning.

PRODUCT

88

BIG G S

know s a g re at d eal an d is in terested in the topic, is preset for a d eep app roach , hut will be unlikely to use it if stressed by, for ex am p le, tim e pressure. Y et an o th e r stu d en t, w ho typically picks o u t likely item s for asse ssm en t and rote learns them , finds th at strategy w on ’t w ork u nder portfolio asse ssm en t and so goes deeper. It is in appropriate to categorize stu d en ts as su rface or d eep learners, b e cau se their ap p ro ach d ep en d s on c o n tex t. A s a resu lt o f the stu d e n ts’ p ercep tion s o f the c o n te x t an d o f their own g oals, feelings o f self-efficacy, attribu tion s, an d so on, they en gage the task using learn in g activ ities th at m ay be appropriate (deep) or in appropriate (su rface). A p p ro p riaten ess is d efined in term s o f cu rriculu m goals an d the stu d en ts ow n p erson al goals, both long term an d im m ed iate. T h e p ro d u ct refers to the o u tco m e s ach iev ed , w hich m ay be co m plex stru ctu res, lists o f factu al inform ation , self-in form atio n su ch as attribu tion s for su cc ess and failure, feelings o f efficacy, an d the like. A ll su ch o u tco m e s ca n provide feed b ac k to the players at the presage level: to the stu d en ts and the teach ers. A p p ro a c h es to learn in g can em erge as quality in d icators at all three levels: a t the process level, w here stu d en ts en gage the task w ith a d eep or su rface ap p ro ach ; as a p rod u ct o f a learning episode, w hen poor teach in g in d u ces a su rface a p p ro ach and good teach in g a d eep ap p ro ach ; an d at presage, w hen stu d en ts d evelop o rien tatio n s ap p rop riate to the co n tex t, learn in g w h at w orks an d w hat d o e sn ’t for eac h teach in g situ ation . A p ­ p ro ach es to learn in g thus tell us w hen the system is w orking (when o rien tatio n s, p rocesses, an d ou tco m e s are pred om in an tly deep) an d w hen it is n o t (w hen o rien tatio n s, p rocesses, and o u tco m e s are pred om in an tly su rface ). T h e key is a t the process level, w here the learn in g-related activity produces or does not produce the desired outcom es. A s Shuell (1986) puts it: It stu d en ts are to learn desired o utcom es in a reasonably effective m anner, then the teach er's fu n d am en tal task is to get stud en ts to engage in learning activities that are likely to result in their achieving those o utcom es. It is im portant to rem em ber th at w hat the stud en t does is m ore im portant than w hat the teach er does. (p. 429)

T h is state m e n t provides a m odel for aligned teach in g th at is pow erful (Biggs, 1999), bu t the relevan ce here is th at it provides a fram ew ork for lookin g a t ap p ro ach es to learn in g in term s o f the learning activ ities we w ant stu d en ts to en gage. I h av e listed som e in Fig. 4-2 gen eric activities, ex p ressed as verbs, rangin g from low co gn itiv e level (m em orize, identify), through in term ed i­ ate level (com p reh en d m ain id eas, relate), to high level (apply to far

COGNITIVE LEVEL

APPROACHES deep

as

verbs

Intentions: to understand

TEACHING

surface to get by

the challenge:

reflect apply: far problem s hypothesize relate to principle

higher level

apply: near problem s

activities

to support

missing

missing

explain

teach

activities

argue relate comprehend: m ain ideas describe enumerate

eliminate

paraphrase comprehend sentence identify, name

what supports lower verbs

m em orize

FIG . 4.2.

A p p ro ac h es to learn ing an d the cognitive level o f learn ing activities.

90

BIGG S

dom ains, reflect). T h is hierarchy is framed in terms o f the structural com plexity and abstractness that follows the course o f learning as described in the S O L O taxonom y (Biggs & Collis, 1982), where S O L O is an acronym for Structure o f the O bserved Learning O utcom e. T h e verbs used and the objects they take are determ ined by the subject content and the level of learning desired, as determ ined by the teaching objectives. In an ideal system, all students would be expected to activate the highest level verb, thus handling the task, or solving the problem, appropriately. Su ch would be a m astery system, where m astery is expressed qualitatively. In fact, we give credit for less than mastery, so that the level reached by a student becom es in effect an assessm ent, leading to a grading, but that raises different issues. T h e present concern is with the next two colum ns o f Fig. 4-2. Say the task in question dem ands reflection as the highest activity used, with many supporting lower verbs (you have to know the terminology, understand principles, and so on to reflect effectively). A student using a deep approach would engage verbs across the entire range, but a student using a surface approach would use lower order verbs in lieu o f the higher order. T h e following statem ents m ade by a psychology undergraduate student and quoted in Ram sden (1984) illustrates this: I hate to say it, but what you have got to do is to have a list o f “ facts” ; you write down ten im portant points and memorize those, then you’ll do all right in the te st.. . . If you can give a bit o f factual information— so and so did that, and concluded that— for two sides o f writing, then you’ll get a good mark. (p. 144)

Now, if the teacher o f this student thought that an adequate understanding of psychology could be m anifested by selectively memorizing, there would be no problem. But I d on ’t think the teacher did think that. I sec this as a case where an inappropriate assessm ent task allowed the students to get a good m ark on the basis o f memorizing facts. A s it happened, this student wrote brilliant essays and later graduated with First C lass Honours. The problem therefore is not that this student is irredeemably cursed with a surface style, but that under current conditions o f teaching he m ade a strategic decision that a surface approach would see him through this task— as indeed it did. T each ing and assessm ent m ethods often encourage a surface approach in this way, because they are not aligned to the aims o f teaching the subject. T h e presence o f a surface approach signals that som ething is out o f kilter in our teaching or in our assessm ent m ethods, but that it is som ething we can hope to address. T h e approaches or orientations that prevail tell us som ething about the quality o f the teaching environm ent, because stu ­

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

91

dents’ orientations tend to adapt to the expected requirem ents. Th us, questionnaires such as the SP Q can be useful for evaluating teaching environm ents (Biggs 1993b; Kem ber, Charlesw orth, Davies, M cKay, & Stott, 1997) and are often more sensitive when reworded for a particular subject (Eley, 1992) or assessment task (Tang, 1991 ; Thom as & Bain, 1984). A particularly depressing finding is that m ost students in m ost under­ graduate courses becom c increasingly surface and decreasingly deep in their orientation to learning (Biggs, 1987; Gow & Kember, 1990; W atkins & H attie, 1985). T h ere are exceptions however. Studen ts with aspirations for graduate study do not show this pattern in their chosen area o f study (Biggs, 1987) nor do students taught using problem -based learning, who become increasingly deep and less surface in their orientations (Newbie &. Clark, 1986). For m ost undergraduate students, however, som ething is happening as they progress that increasingly supports the use o f lower level verbs, which is o f course the opposite o f what is intended by a university education (Gow & Kem ber, 1990). O ne m ight call it the “institutionalization” of learning, whereby students tend to pick up the tricks that get you by, such as “m emorizing the 10 m ost im portant points". T h e last colum n in Figure 4.2, deals with the teaching challenge. T o maximize optim al engagem ent by students, teachers need to elim inate what supports the lower verbs and to provide support for the missing high­ er verbs.

Minimizing the Su rface A pproach W hat in the teaching environm ent would support lower level activities than those needed? Individual differences psychology would tell us to look to the students for the source o f the problem: they are low Level 2 ability, they are hyperactive, they have the wrong learning style, and so on. W hatever the problem might be, it resides in the students. In the end this might well prove to be true, but externalizing the problem in this way doesn’t help teachers engage in reflective practice with a view to teaching better. M ost teachers have to take the “hard” presage factors as given, and do their best with that; it is not their role to play psychologists to excuse unsatisfactory teaching and learning outcom es. Im pedim ents to higher level learning can reside in the instructional context, or in the teacher’s personal style o f teaching, or in both. A com m on problem is the obsession with coverage, that “enemy o f under­ standing” as G ardner (1993, p. 24) put it. In the soul searching following the Third International M ath and Science Study (International A sso cia­ tion for the Evaluation o f Educational A chievem ent, 1996), in which the

92

BIGG S

United States performed worse than many third world southeast A sian countries, the U .S m ath curriculum was judged to be “a mile wide and an inch deep" (Stedm an, 1997, p. 10), whereas curricula in other countries were structured for depth. W here topics are brushed past the students and assessed with tests requiring little more than recognition (Porter, 1989), who can be surprised that high-level verbs aren’t engaged? Underlying such curriculum problems is the question o f alignm ent. We might well have decided what topics to teach, but have we anticipated what a satisfactory student understanding o f them might look like, and how’ we might test that to see that they do understand them in the way we want them to? A lesson plan “to cover N ew ton’s Second Law ” says what the teacher does, not what the student might have to do, to dem onstrate the desired learning has taken place. T h e design o f good instruction dem ands criterion-referenced assessm ent o f this kind. R am sden’s (1984) psychology student was reacting to a classic case o f poor alignm ent; there were gaps in the assessm ent system the students could waltz through. How the system can be aligned is dealt with in the next section. But however well designed the system, teachers som etim es do and say things that com m unicate low verbs to the students. Q uestioning is one, which in U .S. classroom s H ess and A zum a (1991) describe in com parison to Japan ese classroom s as “quick and snappy” . A typical questioning style m ight be: “You. Tom . Yes, you! . . . T o o slow. Think, boy, think! Sally, you tell him .” T h is teaching style is even regarded by som e as admirable, but such short wait time shatters any chances o f high-order cognitive engage­ ment; “thinking” is out o f the question (Tobin, 1987). T h is exam p le also delivers several other teach in g path ologies. It com m unicates to T om that he is not as quick, not as bright, as Sally. His expectations for future success are to that extent diminished. It also com m unicates that the answers to the questions are not in them selves im portant; what is im portant is saying som ething, anything, as quickly as possible. T h is teacher has dim inished both T o m ’s expectancy o f success and the value o f the task content. Both are necessary conditions o f task engagem ent, as stated in the expectancy-value theory o f m otivation. Finally, T om might now be expected to see public questioning as a sccne for hum iliation, so his future strategies would be directed toward avoiding future hum iliation, not toward thinking high. In short, anything in the teacher's teaching style that distracts from the m ain gam e, by engendering cynicism, anxiety, or m aladaptive attributions, will focus the student onto lower order or irrelevant cognitive activities. T h e presence o f surface approaches to learning gives the barom eter reading.

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

93

M aximizing the D eep A pproach It is easy to see why aligned teaching should encourage deep learning. T h e curriculum is stated in the form o f clear objectives, which include the level of understanding required rather than simply a list of topics to be covered. T h e teaching m ethods are chosen that are likely to realize those objectives: you get students to do the things the objectives nom inate. T h e clearest exam ple o f this is problem -based learning. In a nutshell, the objective is to get the students to solve professional problems, the teaching m ethod is to get them to solve problems, and the assessm ent is how well they solve the problems. Lecturing students about how to solve problems and giving them a m ultiple-choice test on problem solving is obviously poor alignment. In short, assessm ent should be criterion referenced, so educators can know if the students have learned what the objectives say they should have learned, and how well. Had R am sden’s (1984) psychology teacher included in the objectives expressions such as, “ theorize ,” “generalize ," or even “com prehend the profundities o f the founders o f modern psychology ,” an assessm ent task that required only paraphrasing “a bit o f factual inform a­ tion for two pages o f writing” would obviously be inadequate. W hen objectives, teaching, and assessm ent are aligned, all com ponents in the system address the sam e agenda and support each other with the sam e learning verbs. T h e students are “entrapped" in this web o f consisten­ cy, optimizing the likelihood they will engage the appropriate learning activities, which is a deep approach by definition.

CONCLUSIONS: ONE SYSTEM , TWO PERSPECTIV ES Th e constructs o f style and approach to learning com e from two different schools o f thought, and so im plications for education are different. Styles derive from m ainstream psychology, in particular, the psychology o f indi­ vidual differences. Psychologists are interested in the ways people reliably differ from each other, and a question such as, “How might we use this knowledge in order to enhance the learning o f students in school and college?” may certainly be regarded as im portant, but it is in fact secondary to the m ain agenda, which is finding out things about children. Given that starting point, with the child as the given, the answer to the educational question becom es a m atter o f optimally arranging the educational context to suit the child. D o we formally m atch, or m ism atch, teaching environ­ m ents to student characteristics? How should teachers treat different kinds of children in appropriately different ways in everyday classroom interaction?

94

BIGG S

A pproaches to learning, on the other hand, derive not from research conducted by psychologists to advance psychological theory, but by ed u ca­ tors trying to understand what is going on in classroom s. T he classroom system is the given, not the child or any other com ponent o f the system. T h e theory that generates teaching-related decisions and actions arises from the context; it is not im posed on it from outside. O f course, psychological constructs and tools are useful, but in service to the gam e, not in calling the shots. Simply, the psychologist is doing one thing, the student learning theorist another. A t times they might overlap, but more frequently they appear to be over-lapping when in fact they are not, as for exam ple when learning approaches are identified as learning styles.

The C a se o f E ducation al A sse ssm e n t: T o E d u cate or to S e lec t? A case where educational and psychological issues have been confused is that o f assessm ent in education, where two conflicting m odels o f assess­ m ent are used (Taylor, 1994). T h e m easurem ent model was designed by psychologists to m easure individual differences. T h e aim is to see as precisely as possible how individuals differ from each other, or from population norms, and then to m ake decisions about the individual on that basis. T o do this, perform ances must be reduced to a single, calibrated unidim ensional scale along which individuals can be placed. It is also assum ed that the trait or characteristic being m easured is stable, at least for as long as the decision applies. For exam ple, when selecting students to go to graduate school, academ ic ability, the trait being m easured, is assum ed to correlate strongly with the required perform ances and remain constant, relative to other students, over the 2 or .3 years in question. If these were not so, the selection would be unfair. Similarly, the statistics and procedures used to select items and to establish the reliability o f m easuring instrum ents m ake the assum ption that what is being m easured is stable, and usually that it is normally distributed. T h e m odel does well what it is intended to do. T h e trouble is, it has been used in an inappropriate context: attainm ent testing. A ttainm ents are the results of learning and teaching, and the appropriate m odel for that is the criterion-referenced standards model. T h a t is, following Shuell (1986), educators decide what are desirable outcom es, teach in such a way as to maximize their likelihood within available resources, and assess to see whether the standards have been met. If not, ideally one should go again until they arc, as in mastery learning, or use a grading system that indicates how well they have been met. T h e target o f assessm ent assum es change (it is called “learning”), so it would seem

4.

ENHANCING LEARNING

95

counterproductive to assess instruments constructed on the assumption of stability. Again, excellent teaching results in skewed distributions; the measurement model is based on normal distributions. Instead, the most common assessment procedures in education have been based on the norm-referenced measurement model. Following are some examples: the procedure of quantifying (“marking”) students’ per­ formances, when students don’t learn numbers they learn understandings; conducting summative assessment analytically, where a task is broken into parts and arbitrarily quantified, when the desired understandings and performances are meaningful only as whole structures; constructing tests that deliberately produce a wide spread of scores; inserting questions on content that has not been taught to identify the “high fliers”; rank ordering students and grading on the curve; and structurally separating teaching and assessment, as happens in many universities. All such practices destroy alignment and create negative backwash that produces learning patholo­ gies (Biggs, 1996b; Crooks, 1988; Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). The requirements of the measurement model and those of good teaching are juxtaposed in Table 4.2. It is nothing short of astonishing that such incongruity between teaching and assessment practice could exist. Part of the problem is a genuine if tacit agreement with Jensen (1973) that individual differences between students is what education is about, that education is indeed a selective process. This TABLE 4.2 The Demands of the Measurement Model and Those of Good Teaching Measurement Model

Good Teaching

1. Performances need to be Students learn holistic structures that cannot quantified, so they arc reduced tomeaningfully be reduced to units of equal correct or incorrect units of importance, equivalent value that can be added. 2. A good test creates “a good spread" between students, preferably normally distributed.

Good teaching produces

reduced variance.

3. The characteristic being measured is stable over time.

Good teaching produces

change: learning.

4. Students need to be tested under standardized conditions.

Students need to be tested under conditions that best reveal an individual’s learning.

96

BIGG S

is reflected in the language and informal working theories o f teachers, adm inistrators, and even parents, despite the rhetoric o f the official aims of education in m ost systems (Shepard, 1991). Th us, in the U nited States and m ost W estern countries, as opposed to A sian countries, success and failure arc attributed primarily to ability, not to effort (Holloway, 1988). It is taken as given in the W est that only a few should succeed well, whereas A sian educators expect m ost children to m aster what is taught (Stevenson & Stigler, 1991). T h e sheer convenience o f the m easurem ent model reinforces such beliefs and practices. T eachers need only decide what topics to “cover” ; cover them, it is hoped by doing more than talking about them ; and give a test, which only needs to produce a num erical and preferably spread-out distribution o f scores. T h e results o f assessm ent can easily be added, averaged, and com bined in w hatever ways are convenient. But as Tab le 4.2 suggests, alignm ent has disappeared. There is no necessary connection between what should have been learned and what has been tested. The substance o f learning itself goes unm onitored and unevaluated. W hat we do know is who is better than whom at test taking, which may be useful inform ation to have, but it is not why m ost students go to school or college.

H ow Do We Cater to Individual D ifferences in E du cation ? I m ention educational assessm ent simply to illustrate how direct applica­ tions from psychology to education can go badly wrong. O f course, this is not the fault o f the psychologists who produced the model, which works beautifully in the right context, but that o f educators for using it so inappropriately. T o return to the issue o f enhancing learning, then, what is it to be: styles or approaches? Perhaps each has it own contribution. It would be easy to suggest that where we are talking about learning focused content, such as mastery o f basic skills, or professional education, where prescribed bodies o f knowledge m ust be learned before accreditation, we seem to be talking about a straightforward criterion-referenced system: clear objectives, speci­ fying certain standards, that assessm ents indicate have or have not been reached. However, m ost educational system s also have another kind o f aim: the developm ent o f individual potential. T h u s, through nature and nurture, or both, individuals have a potential repertoire o f talents, abilities, and styles. It is edu cation’s role to help them realize those strengths and to develop their weaknesses, thereby m aking them more effective individuals and

4.

EN HAN CIN G L EA R N IN G

97

m aking society the richer tor it. It seem s reasonable that through individual differences psychologists can not only help identify what those strengths and w eaknesses might be, but can also develop a technology for optimizing them. But whose form ulation o f those individual differences, out o f the many that have prom ulgated, do we take? Should it be G uilford’s (1967) 120 factors, G ardner's (1983) seven intelligences, or possibly even Jen sen ’s (197.3) Level 1 and Level 2? O r should we move away from an abilities model and focus on Sternberg’s (1997) thinking styles? Should it be 13 of them, or just a selection? H ave we the technology yet for knowing how best to teach to each, either when m atching or m ism atching the stu d en t’s styles? I d on ’t think we are nearer any practical resolution o f these issues than we were in the 1970s, when the focus was on different aptitudes. But certainly it is a logical way to proceed, and maybe with more research and developm ent we could go down this road. It is clear that som e individual differences catalyze certain kinds of learning and inhibit others, whereas other differences produce their own optim al patterns and kinds o f learning. Any formal attem pt at a version o f A T I as a strategy for doing educational work may be prem ature at this time. However, it is practical to acquaint teachers with the im portant dimensions of individual difference, so they are aware o f and sensitive to them in their everyday classroom interaction with students. Now let us look at this another way. T he individual differences are some o f the hard presage factors in Fig. 4.1, which arc just as much part o f the system as any other com ponent. T h e alternative to im posing solutions from top down— hoping the right variables have been nom inated— is to open up the system to help it achieve its own equilibrium. I am reminded o f H unt (1971), who did som ething like this in his handling o f the problem o f A T I. He presented a sm orgasbord o f five teaching styles to senior high school students, who were given 3 weeks to sam ple the styles and choose the style in which they felt m ost com fortable for the rest o f the sem ester. T h e styles were differentiated on the basis o f low to high structure, which allowed varying degrees o f student choice and independence. T h e problem of identifying and m easuring a particular aptitude or thinking style was thus obviated, while still catering to educationally relevant individual differ­ ences. T h ere are here som e obvious logistic difficulties— five parallel teaching contexts for students to choose from?— but the idea that the “aptitude" should be defined on educational grounds, rather than in terms o f a score on a psychological test that m easures som e hypothetical aptitude, is im portant. It addresses the problem from within the system, instead of im posing it from without. It is probably not necessary to set up alternative classroom systems, which in m ost instances would be unrealistic, but to set up alternative

98

BIG G S

co m p o n en ts w ithin the classro o m system . T h e re are levels at w hich there is room for stu d en t ch o ice, if desired, w ithout the n eed to specify which ind ivid u al d ifferen ces are im portan t and w hich are not. For in stan ce, stu d en ts co u ld n eg o tiate their ow n o b jectiv es, to be attain ed in ways th at su ited them , w hich is virtually w h at stu d e n t-te a c h e r co n tracts do already. T h is sort o f arran gem en t is likely to be m ore co m m o n at college and university as off-cam p u s flexible learn in g system s are used. Likew ise, the stu d en ts ca n begin to take co n trol over their asse ssm en t proced u res. U sually, the tea c h er d ecid es w hat m ode o f asse ssm en t to use. In the in terests o f fairness, b e cau se o f stu d e n ts’ different thinkin g styles, teach ers could m ake sure they provide a suitably wide range o f alternatives (Sternberg, 1994). If a teac h er su ggests asse ssm en t by a stu d en t-sele cte d portfolio o f item s, stu d en ts ca n sim ply pu t in the portfolio w h at they think represen ts their b e st relevan t p erfo rm an ces (Biggs, 1999). If we genuinely d o see stu d en ts as co n stru ctin g their ow n learning, it seem s bizarre, like ch oo sin g to sh o o t fish in m uddy w ater rath er th an in clear w ater, to ask them closed q u estio n s th at only allow th em to respond to our co n stru ctio n s o f the co n ten t. If so m e stu d en ts think they can best display their learning on the b asis o f m ultip le-ch oice test results, so be it. T h o se o f legislative ben t m ight prefer m ore stru ctu rally co m p lex and inclusive ways o f displaying their learning. E ith er way, it is up to them . In d oin g this, they also h ave to m ake the ap p rop riate m etacog n itive ju d gm e n ts as to the m ode and quality o f their learning, w hich is itse lf a valu ab le learning ex p erien ce. T h e v arian ce, in o th er w ords, is in the teach in g and asse ssm en t p ro cesses, n ot in the o u tco m es. H ow ever, my aim in this ch ap ter is n ot to d iscu ss in stru ctio n al design, b u t to try to elu cid ate where psychology an d ed u catio n can m ost fruitfully in teract. T h e co n tra st betw een learn in g and th inkin g styles, an d ap p ro ach ­ es to learning, I think h as brou ght ou t the key issues. A ctu ally, I believe Ja m e s (1 8 9 9 /1 9 6 2 ) m ad e the poin t 100 years ago: I say m oreover you m ake a great, a very great m istake, if you think that psychology, being the scien ce o f the m ind’s laws, is som ethin g from which you can d ed uce definite program s and schem es and m ethods o f instruction for im m ediate classroom use. . . . T e a c h in g m ust agree w ith the psychology, but need n ot necessarily be the only kind o f teachin g that would so agree; for many diverse m eth o ds o f teachin g m ay equally well agree with psychological laws. (p. 3)

T h e sc ien ce o f the m in d ’s laws h as ad v an c e d co n sid erably in the in te rv e n ­ ing 100 years, bu t Ja m e s’ poin t is well tak en . H e th ou g h t the d esign o f teach in g cam e from th e " a r t” o f the teach er, the p ro d u ct o f “ an in te rm ed i­ ary and in ven tive m in d .” A n d so it is— as indeed is psychology itse lf the

4.

EN H A N C IN G L E A R N IN G

99

product o f such a mind— but education like psychology also needs its own d atabase. T h e database for education derives from within the system, of which the m ind’s laws— the hard presage factors if you like— arc part, whereas the studen ts’ approaches to learning give the barom eter readings that tell how well the general system is working.

REFEREN CES Allinson, C ., & H ayes J. (1990). Validity o f the Learning Styles Q uestionnaire. Psychological Reports, 67, 8 5 9 -8 66. Biggs, J. B. (1969). Coding and cognitive behaviour. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 287-305. Biggs, J. B. (1970a). Faculty patterns in study behaviour. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22, 161-174. Biggs, J. B. (1970b). Personality correlates o f som e dim ensions o f study. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22, 287-297. Biggs, J. B. (1976a). Educology: T h e theory o f educational practice. Contemporary Educa­ tional Psychology, I, 274-284. Biggs, J. B. (1976b). Dim ensions o f study behaviour: A nother look at A T I. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 6 8 -8 0 . Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality o f learning outcom es. Higher Education, 8, 381-394. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Camberwell, A ustralia: A ustralian C ouncil for Educational Research. Biggs, J. B. (1993a). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12, 73-86. Biggs, J. B. (1993b). W hat do inventories o f studen ts’ learning processes really m easure’ A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 1-17. Biggs, J. B. (1996a). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignm ent. Higher Education, 32, 1-18. Biggs, J. B. (1996b). A ssessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff, and educational dem ands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 3-1 5 . Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham , U K : T h e O pen University Press. Biggs, J. B., & C ollis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The S O L O Taxonomy. New York: A cadem ic Press. Burden, B. (1992). Educational psychology: Force that is spent or one that never got going? The Psychologist, 10(3), 110-111. C ronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington (W iley). C rooks, T . J. (1988). T h e im pact o f classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 4 3 8-481. Dunkin, M . J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study o f teaching. N ew York: H olt, Rinehart & W inston. Eley, M. G . (1992). Differential adoption o f study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23, 231-254. Entwistle, N . (1988). M otivational factors in stu d en ts’ approaches to learning. In R. R. Sch m eck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 2 1 -5 1 ). New York: Plenum.

100

BIG G S

Entwistle, N ., & R am sden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: C room H elm. Entwistle, N . & W aterston, S. (1988). A pproaches to studying and levels o f processing in university students. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 58, 258-265. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32. G ardner, H. W. (1983). Frames o f mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London: Paladin Books. G ardner, H . W . (1993). Educating for understanding. The American Sc/too! Board Journal, July, 20 -2 4 . G ardner, R., H olzm an, P., Klein, G., Linton, H ., &. Spence, D. (1959). Cognitive control: A study o f individual co n sisten cies in cognitive behavior. Psychological Issues, 1(4), M onograph 4G olem an, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury. Gow, L., & Kem ber, D. (1990). D oes higher education prom ote independent learning? Higher Education, 19, 307-322. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature o f human intelligence. New York: M cGraw-Hill. H ansen-Strain, L. (1989). Studen t and teacher cognitive styles in second language classroom s. In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language teaching and learning styles within and across cultures (pp. 2 1 8 -2 2 6 ). H ong Kong: Institute o f Language in Education. H arvey, O . J., H unt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization. New York: Wiley. H attie, J., Biggs, J., &. Purdie, N . (1996). Effects o f learning skills interventions on student learning: A m eta-analysis. Review o f Educational Research, 66, 99-136. H ess, R. D. & Azum a, H. (1991). C ultural support for schooling: C ontrasts between Japan and the United States. Educational Researcher, 2 0 (1 9 ), 2-8. Holloway, S. D. (1988). C oncepts o f ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327-343. H oney, P., &. M umford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles. Berkshire, U K : Peter H oney H udak, M. (1985). Review o f “ Learning Styles Inventory". In D. Keyser & R. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques, volum e II. K an sas City, K S: T e st C orporation of Am erica. H unt, D. E. (1971). Matching models in education. (M onograph series N o. 10) Toronto, O ntario Institute for Studies in Education. International A ssociation for the Evaluation o f E ducational A chievem ent. (1996). The third international math and science study. Paris: O E C D . Jam es, W . (1899/1962). Talks to teachers. New York: Henry H olt/ D over Books. Jensen, A . R. (1973). Educational differences. London: M ethuen. Jon es, R. M. (1968). Fantasy and feeling in education. New York: New York University Press. K agan, J. (1966). Reflection-im pulsivity: T h e generality and dynam ics o f conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-27. Kem ber, D., Charlesw orth, M., Davies, H ., M cKay, J., & Stott, V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness o f educational innovations: Using the Study Process Q uestionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2 3 (2 ), 141-157. Kogan, N . (1971). Educational im plications o f cognitive styles. In G . Lesser (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresm an. Kolb, D. (1976) Learning Style Inventory: S e lf scoring test and interpretation booklet. Boston: M cBer and Com pany. M arton, F. (1981). Phenom enography— Describing conceptions o f the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177-200. M arton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. M ahw ah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.

4.

EN H A N C IN G L E A R N IN G

101

M arton, F., & Bowden, J. (1999). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competetice. London: Kogan Page. M arton, F., &. Saljo, R. (1976a). O n qualitative differences in learning— I: O utcom e and proccss. British Journal of Educatiorial Psychology, 46, 4 -1 1 . M arton, F . , & Saljo, R. (1976b). O n qualitative differences in learning— 11: O utcom e as a function o f the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 46, 115-27. M oore, P. J., &. Scevak, J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developm ental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 205-223. M oreno, V ., &. D iV esta F. (1991). Cross-cultural com parisons o f study habits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 231-239. N ew bie, D., & Clarke, R. M. (1986). T h e approaches to learning o f students in a traditional and in a problem-based m edical school. Medical Education, 20, 267-273. Pask, G . (1976). Styles and strategies o f learning. British Journal of Educational Psyclwlogy, 46, 128-148. Pintrich, P., & deG root, E. (1990). M otivational and self-regulated learning com ponents of classroom academ ic perform ance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out o f balance: T h e case o f elementary school m athem atics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9 -1 5 Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding university learning and teaching. Buckingham, U K : T h e O pen University Press. R am sden, P. (1984). T h e co ntext o f learning. In F. M arton, D. H ounsell & N . Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 144-164). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Universi­ ties Press. R am sden, P., Beswick, D., & Bowden, J. (1986). Effects o f learning skills interventions on first year university stu d en ts’ learning. Human Learning, 5, 151-164. Riding, R., & C h e e m a , I. (1991). Cognitive styles: A n overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215. Salom on, G . (1991). T ranscending the qu alitative-quan titative debate: T h e analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20 (6), 10-18. Schm eck, R.R. (Ed.). (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum. Schm eck, R., G eisler-Brenstein, E., &. Cercy, S. (1991). T h e Revised Inventory o f Learning Processes. Educational Psychology 1 1, 3 4 3-362. Schm eck, R., Ribich, F., & R am anaiah, N . (1977). D evelopm ent o f a self-report inventory for using individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measwrement, /, 4 1 3 -4 3 1 . Sch on, D. A . (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Psychom etricians' beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher, 2 0 (6 ), 2 -16. Shuell, T . J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions o f learning. Review o f Educational Research, 5 6 ,4 1 1 - 4 3 6 . Snow , R. E. (1974). Representative and quasi-representative designs for research on teaching. Review o f Educational Research 44, 265-291. Stedm an, L. C . (1997). International achievem ent differences: A n assessm ent o f a new perspective. Educational Researcher, 2 6 (3 ), 4 -1 5 . Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessm ent at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and personality (pp. 169-187). New York: C am bridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Myths, countcrm yths, and truths about intelligence. Educational Researcher, 25 (2), 11-16.

102

BIG G S

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. N ew York: C am bridge University Press. Stevenson, H ., ¿kStiglcr, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Sum m it Books T an g, C . (1991). Effects o f different assessm ent methods on tertiary studen ts’ approaches to studying. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f H ong Kong. Taylor, C . (1994). A ssessm ent for m easurem ent or standards: T h e peril and promise o f large scale assessm ent reform. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 231-262. Th om as, P. R., &. Bain, J. D. (1984). C ontextu al dependence o f learning approaches: T h e effects o f assessm ents. Human Learning, 3, 227-240. Tobin, K. (1987). T h e role o f wait time. Review of Educational Research, 57, 69 -9 5 . Trigwell, K., &. Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality o f learning outcom es at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275. W atkins, D. A . (1983). Depth of processing and the quality o f learning outcom es. Instructional Science, 12, 49—58. W atkins, D. A , & H attie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the appraoch to learning of A ustralian tertiary' students, i Inman Learning, 4 (2 ), 127-142 W einstein, C ., & Mayer, R., (1984). T h e teaching o f learning strategies. In W ittrock, M. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. N ew York: M acm illan. W einstein, C ., Schulte, A ., & Palmer, D. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (L A S S I). C learw ater, FL: H & H Publications. W itkin, H., Dyk, R., Faterson, H ., G oodenough, D., & Karp, S . (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.

5 Conceptions, Styles, and Approaches Within Higher Education: Analytic Abstractions and Everyday Experience N oel Entwistle V elda M cC une University of Edinburgh Paul W alker University College London

INTRODUCTION In research on learning and thinking styles, one o f the continuing debates concerns the appropriate level o f description. O bserved behavior and interviews about learning draw attention to the m arked differences between individuals and to the com plex effects o f differing learning environ­ ments. In contrast, m uch o f the research effort has been to simplify this complexity and identify underlying constructs that provide a precise language to describe and discuss everyday observations and experiences. Even within the research literature, the theoretical constructs differ in their range and scope: som e describe global concepts having wide generality, whereas others relate to a specific situation. T h ese contrasting levels of description have em erged in answer to different research questions and are rooted in differing theoretical perspectives. In deciding which conceptual framework to adopt, both purpose and context have to be considered. In this area, educational research from a psychological perspective is generally directed toward a deeper understanding o f teaching and learning processes in everyday contexts, with the ultim ate intention o f improving 103

104

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

the quality and effectiveness o f education. H aving an effect on practice depends, in part, on choosing a conceptual framework that simplifies complexity, while providing a description o f everyday experience that the participants can recognize. T his implies a set o f variables or analytic categories that are narrowly focused on the everyday context, yet convey­ ing an overall understanding o f how learning takes place often seem s to require broader constructs that draw on general psychological theories. T h is chapter introduces a set o f concepts that have been developed to describe how students learn and study at university and to explain the influences on the quality o f learning outcom es. T h e conceptual framework derives from ideas introduced by M arton and his colleagues in G othenburg, and since taken up by research groups and staff developers in many countries. T h e concepts were established through interview studies, with the relations between them being explored through both qualitative analyses o f interview transcripts and m ultivariate analyses o f inventory scores. O u t o f this work cam e a series o f concepts, with differing breadths o f focus, but these analytic abstractions are all inevitably distanced from the phenom ena they describe. T h e process o f abstraction enables complexity to be handled more easily, but also creates difficulty in identifying with the explanations provided. T h e chapter thus also suggests ways alternative forms o f analysis may retain more o f the everyday idiosyncrasy o f behavior and thinking, while dem onstrating the value o f the conceptual framework through which students and staff can reflect critically about their current practices.

CO NCEPTS, CONCEPTIONS, AND ST Y L E S In introducing this research area, a clear initial distinction should be made between the notion o f a “concept," as an agreed category, and a “con cep­ tion,” as an individual construction from knowledge and experience. T h e term concept is generally taken to m ean “a m ental representation o f a class o f objects, ideas, or events that share com m on properties” (W esten, 1996, p. 257). Som e everyday concepts, such as “chair,” do have recognizable defining features, but abstract concepts are more difficult to classify in this way; their representation depends more on prototypes or instances that convey an im age, or even a feeling, o f the m eaning. In recent years, the central role given to m ental representations in conceptualization has been challenged, with thinking being described in terms o f both the activation of neural nets (E delm an, 1992) and chan ging aw areness (M arton &. Booth, 1997).

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

105

In w hatever way they are described, individual conceptions o f abstract conccpts generally differ qualitatively in focus or inclusivity, even within the core m eaning o f the concept, because o f the differing knowledge and life experiences from which they arc constructed. T h ese distinctive con cep­ tions, then, influence the ways subsequent events are interpreted. Such differences in conceptualization have been systematically explored through phenomenography, the research approach that M arton and his collaborators have developed (M arton, 1994). Studies using this interview methodology have shown that individual conceptions often fall into a relatively small num ber o f recognizably different categories, which phenomenography seeks to identify, describe, and exemplify before analyzing the relationships between them. Investigating differences in people’s conceptions of learning, Saljo (1979) asked adults with varying educational experience what “learning" m eant to them. H is study produced a developm ental hierarchy o f five distinct conceptions o f learning T h e categories ranged from learning as rote m em orization and reproducing knowledge, to a recognition that learning rests ultim ately on transforming the inform ation presented in the light of what is known or has been experienced already. T h e five categories originally identified can be described as follows: •

building up knowledge;

• memorizing by rote; Reproducing •

acquiring facts and methods for future use;

• abstracting meaning for oneself; Transforming •

seeking to understanding reality.

Individuals in S aljo ’s sam ple who recognized the im portance o f understand­ ing for them selves were still ready to use rote learning when necessary, but were conscious o f the forms o f learning available and how they could best be used. C onceptions o f learning are derived from the cum ulative effects o f previous educational and other experiences, and so tend to be relatively stable and to influence, to some extent, subsequent ways o f thinking and acting. Their relative stability also stem s from the individual characteristics o f the learner— their pattern o f abilities; their personality; and, lying between ability and personality, their style o f learning. C onceptions do, however, change and evolve as people m ature and engage in intellectual activities (M arton, D ali’A lba, & Beaty, 1993). In research on student learning, the term style has been used in two different ways. V erm unt (1998), am ong others, used it to describe aspects o f studying that group together within factor analyses, w hereas Pask (1976) preferred the m ore restricted psychological usage. Sternberg (1997) has

106

E N T W I S T L E , M C C L 'N E . A N D W A L K E R

argu ed th a t a n ability in d ic a te s w h at a p e rso n is ab le to d o, w h ereas a style d esc rib es th e w ay so m e o n e p refers to d o it. M e ssick an d h is a sso c ia te s (1 9 7 6 ) su g g e ste d th a t style also c o v ers the m an n e r in w h ich a task is carried o u t, refle ctin g th e u n d erlyin g p erso n ality o f th e in d iv id u al. A s M e ssick (1 9 7 6 ) c o m m e n te d : Abilities . . . arc generally thought o f as unipolar . . . [and] value directional: having more o f an ability is better than having less. Cognitive styles are [bipolar and] value differentiated: each pole has adaptive value . . . [depend­ ing] upon the nature o f the situation and upon the cognitive requirements of the task in h a n d .. . . Cognitive styles entail generalised habits o f information processin g,.. . but they develop in congenial ways around underlying personality traits. Cognitive styles are thus intimately interwoven with affective, tem peram ental, and m otivational structures as part o f the total personality, (pp. 6 -9 ) P ask (1 9 7 6 ) u sed th is d efin itio n in his an aly sis o f learn in g sty les in h igh er e d u c a tio n , in w h ich he in v e stig a te d how u n iversity stu d e n ts carried o u t e x te n siv e a n d co m p le x task s req u irin g th e d e m o n stra tio n o f u n d e r sta n d ­ ing. H e in itially id en tified a c o n tr a st b e tw een holist an d serialist strate g ie s w ith in a sp ecific ta sk , b u t late r arg u ed th ere w as su fficien t c o n siste n cy in th e u se o f th ese w ays o f th in k in g to a c c e p t th em as relativ ely stab le learn in g or c o n c e p tu a l sty les (P ask , 1 9 8 8 ). T h e c h a ra c te ristic s o f th ese p referred w ays o f lea rn in g are su m m arized in T a b le 5.1. A h o list style in v o lv e s th e a c tiv e se arc h for m u ltip le co n n e c tio n s b e tw een id e a s in b u ild in g a b ro ad an d o ften id io sy n cratic overview o f a to p ic, w h ereas th e sc rialist style c o n c c n tr a te s o n e x a m in in g c v id c n c c an d d e ta il w ith in a c a u tio u s lo g ical sta n c e . P ask saw th e ap p ro p riate in terp lay o f th ese tw o th in k in g p ro c e sse s as in d ic a tin g a versatile learn in g style, w hich

TA B L E 5.1 Defining Features o f Distinctive Learning Styles in Higher Education Holisi

Prefers Personal Organization and a Broad View Tries to build up own overview o f topic Thrives on illustration, analogy, and anecdote Actively seeks connections between ideas

Serialist

Prefers Step-by-Step, Tightly Structured Learning Focuses on the topic in isolation Concentrates on details and evidence Adopts a cautious logical stance, noting objections

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

107

led to a more thorough understanding o f the task. In all likelihood, this finding can be generalized to suggest that convincing explanations of academ ic conccpts depend on an alternation betw een an overview o f the interconnections am ong ideas and a disciplined, logical consideration of the details (Entw istle). T h e existence o f distinctive stylistic preferences does m ean, however, that one o f the two strategies will generally be used more extensively than the other. T h e im balance thus created may then limit the level, and the kind, o f understanding reached. O verem phasis on serialist strategies may produce good procedural skills, with understanding em erging as a by product, whereas excessive reliance on holist processes leads to a broad, general form o f understanding lacking the substance o f detailed factual content and facility in operational m ethods (Pask, 1988).

APPROACHES TO STUDYING In higher education, the actions that stem from conceptions o f learning typically relate to the differing ways students carry out their academ ic work and are described in terms o f study strategies (Pintrich & G arcia, 1994; W einstein, Goetz, & A lexander, 1988) or approaches to learning and studying. Studen ts who enter higher education with a restricted conception o f learning usually adopt ineffective ways o f studying, whereas those with more sophisticated conceptions are more successful. M arton’s original study used a naturalistic experim ent in which students were asked to read a substantial academ ic article and to be ready to answer questions on it afterwards (M arton &. Saljo, 1976). T he questions required students to explain what they understood from reading the article and how they went about reading it. Studen ts who had only a weak understanding o f the article said they had not really intended to understand it; they tried to spot questions and concentrated on specific aspects o f the article, rather than focusing on its overall meaning. M arton and Saljo (1997) established that the intention to reach a personal understanding o f the text led to particular ways o f reading it— interacting with ideas and evidence to explore how conclusions had been justified by the author. T h ese analyses led to the terms deep— reading for m eaning— and sur­ face— concentrating only on the individual words or facts. Subsequently, the term deep was broadened and used to describe general approaches to studying, which led from an intention to understand, to active conceptual analysis, and thus to a deep level o f understanding. Surface approaches were seen in terms o f an intention to com plete the task with little personal engagem ent. T h is intention was often associated with routine and unreflective m em orization and procedural problem solving, with restricted

10 8

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

conceptual understanding being an inevitable outcom e. In spite o f the consistency shown in habits o f studying, the early research emphasized the influence o f both co ntext and content; subsequently, the general influence o f teaching, learning, and the whole learning environm ent has been well docum ented (Biggs, 1999; Entwistle, 1998a; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ram sden, 1997; chap. 4, this volum e). M arton’s (1976) naturalistic experim ent produced just the deep-surface distinction, but interviews about everyday studying brought out the perva­ sive influence o f assessm ent procedures on learning and studying. It was necessary to introduce an additional category— strategic approach— in which the intention was to achieve the highest possible grades by using organized study m ethods and effective time m anagem ent (Entwistle & Ram sden, 1983). Biggs (1987, this volum e) identified a similar category— achieving— although with a different em phasis. T h e strategic approach also involves an alertness to the assessm ent process, which can be seen in the following extract from Miller and Parlett (1974): I play the exam ination game. The examiners play it, so we play it t o o .. . . The technique involves knowing what’s going to be in the exam and how it's going to be marked. You can acquire these techniques from sitting in a lecturer’s class, getting ideas from his point o f view, the form o f his notes, and the books he has written— and this is separate to picking up the actual work content, (pp. 59-61)

T h is extract suggests a student who has two distinct focuses o f concern within the lecture: the academ ic content and the dem ands o f the assess­ m ent system. T h e interest in the content is typical o f a deep approach, but the alertness to assessm ent requirem ents is essentially strategic. T h e intentions to learn in deep or surface ways are mutually exclusive, although the related learning processes may som etim es becom e mixed in everyday experience. T h e com bination o f deep and strategic approaches is comm only found in successful students, but a deep approach on its own may not be carried through with sufficient determ ination and effort to reach deep levels o f understanding. T h e defining characteristics o f the three approaches to studying (see T able 5.2) have been derived mainly from research on social science students studying texts or writing essays. A lthough contrast am ong deep, surface, and strategic intentions seem s to apply widely across disciplinary boundaries, the processes and strategies required to carry them through inevitably differ. T h e processes involved in a deep approach, for exam ple, have to be redefined within each discipline or professional area to ensure they include the learning processes necessary for conceptual understanding in that area o f study.

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S , S T Y L E S . A N D

A PP R O A C H ES

109

T A B L E 5.2 Defining Features of A pproaches to Learning and Studying Deep Approach

Seeking Meaning

Intention— to understand ideas for yourself

By:

Relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience Looking for patterns and underlying principles C hecking cvidcncc and relating it to conclusions Exam ining logic and argum ent cautiously and critically Being aware o f understanding developing while learning Becom ing actively interested in the course content Surface Approach

Reproducing

Intention— to cope with course requirements

By:

Treatin g the course as unrelated hits o f knowledge Memorizing facts and carrying out procedures routinely Finding difficulty in m aking sense o f new ideas presented Seeing little value or m eaning in either courses or tasks set Studying w ithout reflecting on cither purpose or strategy Feeling undue pressure and worry about work Strategic Approach

Reflective Organizing

Intention— to achieve the highest possible grades

By:

Putting consistent effort into studying M anaging time and effort effectively Finding the right conditions and materials for studying M onitoring the effectiveness o f ways o f studying Being alert to assessm ent requirem ents and criteria G earing work to the perceived preferences o f lecturers

M ULTIVARIATE A N A L Y SE S O F INVENTORY R ESPO N SES A lthough the initial work on approaches to studying cam e from interviews, a substantial body o f research has grown out o f attem pts to m easure the relatively consistent elem ents within studying. Several different inventories have been developed, such as the A p p r o a c h e s to S tu d y in g In v en to ry A SI

1 10

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

(Entwistle & Ram sden, 1983), all o f which produce similar factors. A t the broadest level, deep, surface, and strategic groupings o f subscales arc comm only found, each constituted from intentions, learning processes, and associated m otives (see Biggs, 1993). O ther inventories have introduced additional com ponents o f m otivation (Pintrich &. G arcia, 1994) and elaborated elem ents o f m etacognition and self-regulation within the gener­ al dom ains o f deep and strategic approaches (Pintrich & G arcia, 1994; Verm unt, 1998). T ab le 5.3 presents a m axim um likelihood factor analysis o f 817 first-year university students drawn from 10 contrasting departm ents in six British universities who com pleted the m ost recent version o f the A SI. T h e Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (A S S IS T ; T ait, Entwistle, &. M cCune, 1998) includes additional scales intended to extend the description o f studying and reactions to teaching. T h e definition o f the strategic approach has also been broadened to include an aspect of m etacognition and self-regulation— monitoring effectiveness — whereas the surface approach puts more em phasis on ineffective studying through the inclusion o f a scale indicating a “lack o f purpose.” T h e subscales included in this analysis were those contributing to the three main factors described earlier, supported by items describing studen ts’ conceptions of learning and their preferences for different kinds o f teaching. T hree factors produced eigenvalues above unity, and that solution also provided the best balance between intcrprctability and the percentage o f variance explained. T h e original version o f the A S I explicitly included Pask's (1976) two styles o f learning. In A S S IS T , however, these have been subsum ed within the definition o f the deep approach, which is taken to require both ways o f thinking— relating ideas (holist) and using evidence (serialist)— or a versatile style in learning. T h e factor analysis confirms that these two processes link closely with both the intention to seek m eaning and interest in ideas (an attitudinal correlate o f intrinsic m otivation ). Linkages between approach and m otive arc also clear-cut within the strategic approach, where achievem ent m otivation (A tkinson & Feather, 1966) is strongly associated with both organized studying and time m anagem ent. Similarly, the “surface apath etic” factor brings together syllabus boundness and lack o f understanding with both lack o f purpose and fear o f failure. A s in previous studies, the deep approach is linked with a conception o f learning as “transform ing,” and with a preference for teaching that encour­ ages and challenges understanding (Entwistle & T ait, 1990). A parallel finding indicates that students adopting a surface apathetic approach prefer teaching that transm its inform ation and directs learning toward assessm ent requirem ents. O th er research has indicated that students who show a deep strategic approach are also better able to discern and use the aspects o f a

T A B L E 5.3 Factor Loadings on A pproaches and Preferences for Teaching"'

(N = 817, 54.5% variance)

Factor I Deep

Factor II Strategic

Factor III Surface Apathetic

Conceptions of Learning Learning as reproducing Learning as transforming

.42

Approaches to Studying Deep approach Seeking M eaning

.70

Relating Ideas

.79

U se o f evidence

.76

Interest in ideas

.65

Strategic approach .80

O rganized studying T im e m anagem ent M onitoring effectiveness

.92 .39

A chievem ent m otivation

.45 .76

Surface apathetic approach Lack o f understanding

.77

Lack o f purpose

.41

Syllabus boundness

.41

Fear o f failure

.71

Preferences for teaching that: Encourages understanding T ransm its inform ation

.61 .35

'This is a rotated maximum 1likelihood analysis with delta set a at zero. Loadings less than 0.3 have been omitted.

11 1

FIG. 5.1.

Conceptual map o f components of effective studying within A SSIST

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

1 13

learning environm ent that will support their way o f studying (Meyer, 1991; Meyer, Parsons, & D unne, 1990). Figure 5.1 presents a conceptual m ap o f the main com ponents included within A S S IS T and indicates the ways these dim ensions combine to create an idealized description o f a deep, strategic approach to studying. T h e links between concepts indicate the existence o f positive relationships, with the exception o f the two links shown as negative.

BUILDING MORE HOLISTIC CO NSTRU CTS TO D ESCRIBE STUDYING T h e com bination o f attributes included in Fig. 5.1 not only summarizes the characteristics o f an ideally effective student— what Janssen (1996) has dubbed the studax— but also connects with theoretical developm ents in educational psychology. Bereiter (1990) has argued coherent organizations o f cognitive, conative, and affective structures are brought into play within specific learning contexts. T h ese cognitive structures are seen as an “entire com plex o f knowledge, skills, goals and feelings” that form a m utually interdependent, organic whole (Bereiter, 1990, p. 613). T h e im portance of using these broader, integrated groupings in seeking to understand sch olas­ tic or academ ic perform ance has also been em phasized by Snow, C orno, and Jackson, (1996) in a review article on affective and conative functions in learning. Perkins, am ong others, has described such groupings as dispositions, which he sees as bringing together abilities, inclinations includ­ ing m otives, and sensitivities to context (Perkins, 1998; Perkins, Jay, & Tishm an, 1993). W ithin this framework, the deep approach could perhaps be seen as a disposition to seek academ ic understanding within a specific learning context. Why are these com posite constructs being introduced now, when previously the main concern in psychology was to create tightly defined variables? From an educational perspective, one reason is that the broader concepts are readily recognizable to both staff and students in capturing the essence o f their experiences. In psychological terms, this coalescence of concepts may imply that certain groups o f variables act synergistically to produce learning outcom es, and that this synergy needs to be reflected in the theory, through the use o f com posite constructs such as dispositions or approaches to studying. T h e use o f analytic categories to bring out the pattern o f relationships between contributory com ponents within effective studying is an essential first step in clarifying how students study. C orrelational findings do, however, encourage a view o f student learning that implies a consistency

1 14

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

and coherence in study behavior rarely found in reality. T h e apparent conflict between descriptions o f stable individual characteristics and the evidence o f specific reactions to tasks is well recognized (Entwistle, 1979; Laurillard, 1979). A nd yet it is still possible for students who have a general tendency to adopt a particular approach or style, nevertheless, to vary it in reaction to specific circum stances (Entwistle & Ram sden, 1983; Ram sden, 1979). A recent study on schoolchildren has identified both stable and less stable patterns in studen ts’ reactions to tasks and contexts (Boekaerts, 1999). T h e stable patterns were found to depend on interest, comm itm ent, and challenge, whereas the less stable patterns reflected students’ reactions to specific contexts and developm ental changes in the linkages am ong selfconcept, intention, and feelings. In the research on student learning, the analytic categories provide little or no inform ation about the specific techniques used in tackling academ ic tasks and take no account o f developm ental changes. If a more adequate description o f how students learn is to be provided, researchers need to draw directly on studen ts’ experiences as they carry out specific tasks. A lthough recent developm ents have sought to integrate cognitive and conative constructs within specific educational contexts, other studies have sought to describe how students react to those contexts through finer grained descriptions. Tw o recent interview studies at Edinburgh go beyond the general conceptual abstractions, bringing to life the actual practice o f studying in the words o f individual students. T h e first project looked at how final-year students prepare for exam inations, and the second investigated develop­ m ental patterns and trends in acquiring skill in learning.

PREPARING FOR FINAL EXAMINATIONS In traditional British universities such as Edinburgh, final exam inations require students to dem onstrate a thorough conceptual understanding of topics they have studied. They usually have about 10 weeks to prepare for five, 3-hour exam inations, in each o f which they are typically asked to answer three general questions in essay form. A series o f sm all-scale interview studies has focused on how students prepare for their final exam inations and the ways they write answers when taking those exam inations (Entwistle, 1995; Entwistle, N . J., & Entwistle, A . C ., 1991; Entwistle & M arton, 1994;). T h e interviews followed the style of phenom enographic interviews in being interactive and asking the students to focus on specific instances. They also encouraged reflection on the detail o f study activities and reasons for studying in that way. This

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

1 15

research was not intended to categorize differing conceptions, hut rather to consider the overall experience of preparing for final examinations. Students who had developed deep, strategic approaches to studying were likely to have worked out in previous years a systematic technique for revising their notes. Their method typically involved writing revision notes that iteratively reduced the detail and brought out, not just the main points, but an outline indicating their own way of thinking about the topic. That process often led to a single page, designed to draw attention to the structure of the student’s understanding, sometimes in the form of a patterned note or concept map (Entwistle &. Napuk, 1997). The headings or main branches of the note triggered detailed information not displayed in the summary itself. This mnemonic could then be brought to mind during the examination to represent the essence of the student’s understanding. This process can be illustrated through the following composite descrip­ tion, based on the comments of several students who had adopted a deep, strategic approach to preparing for finals: I m ade out a tim etable and stuck to it very closely. It was really ju st allocating time for each course and choosing the topics and revising them . I went through the past papers and picked out subjects which I thought might come up, but also that I’d found m ost interesting, and I’d com e to grips with. I revised those, and also any topics th at might be linked with them. I would revise whole blocks, so that I felt I had a pretty wide coverage and that I would be covering m yself in the exam . I went through all my notes first and then I took notes on all o f them and condensed them into about 17 A 4 sheets. T h en underline w hat was im portant. T h en , I’d put them onto another sheet, so they were becom ing more and more condensed. Eventually, they went on to index cards, and I would highlight certain key words or phrases. I designed a sort o f check-list system to cross o ff w hat I knew. A s I went through the index cards, I would ask m yself if I rem em bered each bit, and if I could explain it, then that went off the list. U n der various headings I would have the im portant points which showed the understanding, although it was basically nam es, experim ents and im portant exam ples, which triggered off the understanding by reading it through. T h e structure o f the headings in my notes are like clues. I’ll write it in a certain way so th at it’s very structured in paragraphs, so I can envisage how that should be. I realise that using diagram s is ju st a way that I can retain m aterial, rather than retaining words or descriptions. It’s a logical sequence worked out as a ‘story’ about som ething. H aving im aged a lot o f things previously, I got on to this process o f constructing kind o f m ental m aps on a sheet o f paper based on a series o f im ages. It was a very good and quick way o f me putting down the basics. I can see these notes virtually as a picture, which I can review, bringing in more facts about each part. Looking at a particular

1 16

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

part o f the diagram sort o f triggers o ff other thoughts. It acts as a schem atic, a bit like a syllabus; it tells you w hat you should know, w ithout actually telling you what it is. I think the facts are stored separately, and the schem atic is like an index, I suppose. I had tried to structure my revision so that I could understand what was going on. So, although I had this structure when I went into the exam , I still w anted it to be flexible, so that I could approach the question itself. A t the time, as I was writing, I was just using anything th at cam e into my mind and fitted in: as I wrote, it was alm ost as though I could see it all fitting into an overall picture. Following the logic through, it pulls in pictures and facts as it needs them . E ach time I describe a particular topic, it’s likely to be different. W ell, you start with evolution, say, and suddenly you know where you’re going next. T h en , you m ight have a choice to go in that direction or that d irection and follow it through various options it’s offering. Hopefully, you’ll m ake the right choice, and so this goes to this, goes to this— and you’ve explained it to the level you've got to. In an exam , you have to have background knowledge o f the subject, and an ability to interpret the inform ation in your own way. You d o n ’t sit down and think “ How m uch can I rem em ber about this particular su bject” ; you try and explain your ideas, using exam ples which com e to mind. You can 't use all the inform ation for a particular line o f argum ent, and you d o n ’t need to; you only need to use what you think is going to convince the exam iner. T h e more I have done exam s, the m ore I’d liken them to a perform ance— like being on a stage; having not so m uch to present the fact that you know a vast am ount, bu t having to perform well with what you do know. So rt of, playing to the gallery. I was very conscious o f being outside what I was writing. (Entwistle, 1995; Entw istle, N . J., & Entwistle, A . C ., 1991; Entwistle & M arton, 1994)

Several students had mentioned the visual form their revision notes took, or how the notes were remembered as mental images during the examination. When pressed, however, they said that what they could see was not a complete visual image, but was something “like visualising.” This intriguing aspcct of the students’ comments led to a secondary analysis of the data (Entwistlc & Marton, 1994). As the comments above indicated, some students could reflect on the structure they had created as a scaffolding for their understanding. In the full transcripts, these frameworks of understanding seemed almost to have an independent existence in their minds that they could review at will. These descriptions of an experience of an entity with perceived structure and shape suggested the concept of a knowledge object.

In examinations, a well-established knowledge object provides a generic structure for an explanation that is sufficiently flexible to adapt to the particular requirements of the question set. An explanation in an essay examination needs to be a specific response to the actual question set, to

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

1 17

cover a specific co ntext o f relevant knowledge, and to keep a particular audience in mind— the exam iners who will be reading it. T he com m ents of the deep, strategic students suggested that, as they were writing, their explanations developed a dynamic or a m om entum o f their own, which partially determ ined the direction the argum ent that would follow, drawing in particular exam ples or evidence as they becam e relevant. Recent evidence suggests that knowledge objects may be used by staff in presenting talks or lectures and can be recalled after several years if the appropriate triggers are available (Entwistle, 1998b). T h e results o f these qualitative studies o f preparing for exam inations have introduced yet another abstraction— the knowledge object— but they have also provided a detailed description o f the revision process, going well beyond the broad conceptualization offered by the three approaches to studying. However, the system atic, carefully controlled process o f preparing for exam s indicated in the com posite extract from the interviews is typical o f only a small portion o f students— those who had developed a deep, strategic, and m etacognitive approach to studying.

DEVELOPING SKILL IN LEARNING DURING THE FIRST YEAR AT UNIVERSITY T h e other fine-grained qualitative study at Edinburgh has been following up a group o f first-year students who were interviewed on three occasions: at the beginning o f the year, at or just after the end o f the first term when they had subm itted their first coursework essay (term paper) and taken their first exam ination, and around the time o f their final assignm ent. T he students also com pleted the A S S IS T inventory and were asked to explain som e o f their responses. Analyses o f the transcripts have focused not only on the developm ental trends toward increased sophistication in ways of studying (M cC unc, 1998; M cC une & Entwistle, 1999), but also on the way approaches to studying are influenced by chance events (M cCune, 1999). T h e com posite constructs o f conception and approach guided thinking in the early stages o f analysis, but, increasingly, the voices o f individual students focused attention both on the com plex interactions needed to explain study behavior and on the need to interpret reactions in terms of the stu d en t’s history. Tw o brief case studies are used to illustrate the interaction between the relatively stable characteristics o f the individual and the events m et along a developm ental track. T h e exam ples also indicate how ideas about general relationships between approach and context have to be adjusted to take into account individual reactions to tasks. T h e first student shows alm ost

1 18

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

n o e v id e n c e o f im p ro v e m e n t o v e r th e first year, c h o o sin g o p tio n s th a t allow ed h er to follow th e le ast stre n u o u s ro u te. In c o n tra st, th e se co n d stu d e n t’s a ttitu d e to h er e x p e rie n c e s at u n iversity led h er to recogn ize, an d cap italize o n , o p p o rtu n itie s for b e c o m in g a m ore effe ctiv e learn er. R e se a rch o n th e d efin in g fe atu re s o f a p p ro a c h e s to stu d y in g p o in t to a c o h e re n t se t o f a ttrib u te s: th e in te n tio n to u n d e rsta n d , to g e th e r w ith an a ctiv e e n g a g e m e n t w ith th e task , lin k ed to in te rest in th e su b je c t m atte r. T h e re is also a c le a r in d ic a tio n in se v eral stu d ie s th a t essay assig n m en ts ten d to e n c o u ra g e a d e e p ap p ro a c h (S c o u lle r, 1 9 9 7 ). O u r first c a se stu dy sh o w s how b o th th ese g en eral te n d e n c ie s n ee d to be q u alifie d w hen c o n sid e rin g a sp e cific in stan ce . In th e first in terv iew , this stu d e n t e x p re sse d a k ee n in te rest in b e co m in g an e d u c a tio n a l p sy ch o lo g ist b u t, in su b se q u e n t in terview s, sh e ad m itte d la ck in g th e d e te rm in a tio n to ac h ie v e th a t g o al, as sh e fo u n d it d ifficu lt to g e t d ow n to w ork. A lth o u g h reco g n izin g th is w eak n ess, sh e b e liev ed it w as a fa c e t o f h er p erso n ality sh e co u ld n o t c h a n g e , w hich a d v ice on stu d y skills th u s co u ld n o t be e x p e c te d to in flu e n ce . G iv e n the o p p o rtu n ity to ta k e the easy o p tio n , sh e d id so , e v e n th o u g h sh e reco g n ized it w ou ld lim it h er ability to u n d e rsta n d th e co n te n t. T h is re co g n itio n cam e as sh e refle cte d on her re sp o n se s to th e in v e n to ry an d in co m m e n tin g o n h er w ays o f tac k lin g essay w riting. In th e in ven tory , this stu d e n t sh o w ed h igh sc o re s o n “ se ek in g m ean in g,” b u t these w ere asso ciated with high scores on “ syllabus b o u n dn ess" an d low sc o re s o n b o th “ a c h ie v in g ” an d “ tim e m a n a g e m e n t,” a p a tte rn th at co m e s th ro u gh in th e stu d e n t’s co m m e n ts. I didn’t prepare well for the exam at a l l .. . . W hen it got to the stage that I maybe had three days to do an essay, then I would miss the lectures on these d a y s .. . . Getting close to the exams, |I realized | I’d obviously missed a load o f le c tu re s.. . . But I’m not a worrier . . . [and] nothing really bad has happened yet. . . . I didn't think ahead, and even if I had, it wouldn’t really have bothered me at the time, because I'd just think I'll cross that bridge when I com e to it. . . . I have to admit the only thing I revised was statistics, and that wasn’t really revision because I’d missed it all in the le c tu re s.. . . I tend to avoid study skills, because I know I don’t have them, and . . . I’m a bit cynical about the likelihood that I will adhere to any sort o f study skills system,. . . so I haven’t bothered with anything like that, although I suppose I should because that’s where I’m la c k in g .. . . I know what my problems are with studying. . . — it's basic laziness, that's all it is r eally .. . . I suppose I don’t really like to mask it in any deeper ideas about why I don’t do it, I’m sure it just is laziness. [In] the questionnaire [we filled in] . . . it was saying, “ Do you like books that are straightforward and give you what you need to know, or do you like ones that encourage you to go beyond what the lecturer might have (said) ?” I

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

1 19

do like books like chat, but for my convenience I prefer the other sort. It’s not necessarily that I do prefer them, it’s just, knowing the way I work, they suit me better. T h e essay question was similar, it suits me a lot better to just find out a basic th eo ry ;.. . you don’t have to think that m u c h .. . . [In one o f the essays we were asked to] “outline Piaget’s pre-operational stage.” It didn’t say “discuss” or “evaluate,” that’s the point. It was just [to] say, basically, what the theory was, without any o f your own thoughts on it, or anyone else’s . . . . I thought that was quite stra n g e ,.. . [but] that’s the sort o f essay I like, because you can just get the books you need and it's quite easy, you don’t have to struggle over com plicated id e a s .. . . It’s not necessarily what I would enjoy the most, but knowing that I don’t tend to put too much work towards my essays, it’s the sort o f title that I enjoy getting, because I know that there’s more chance that I can do it with the minimum o f effort. T h is stu d e n t’s a c c e p ta n c e o f her p r o c ra stin a tio n w as in m ark ed c o n tra st to th e se c o n d c a se stu d y , w h ich su g g e sts how c h a n c e e v e n ts c a n be tran sfo rm e d in to le a rn in g o p p o rtu n itie s by a w ell-m o tiv ated stu d e n t w ho is alert to p o ssib ilities. A n d th is ale rtn e ss m ay w ell reflect how earlier e d u c a tio n a l e x p e rie n c e s, an d th e c o n c e p tio n o f learn in g form ed from th em , c a n sh a p e futu re re a c tio n s to tu to r s’ c o m m e n ts th at, in tu rn , bu ild a m ore so p h istic a te d view o f learn in g a n d stu d y in g. W ith th is fram e o f m in d, stu d e n ts are m ore ab le to cap italize o n situ a tio n s in w ays th a t will stre n g th e n th eir a p p ro a c h e s to le arn in g a n d stu d y in g. S c o re s from th e in v e n to ry su g g e st th a t th is stu d e n t h ad a d eep , h o listic a p p ro a c h to stu d y in g, su p p o rted by organ ized stu d y in g an d g o o d tim e m a n a g e m e n t. In th e in terview , sh e in d ic a te d sh e h ad alread y realized u n iversity h a d c h a n g e d th e way sh e w as th in k in g, an d th is reco g n itio n se e m e d to fuel a gen erally m ore refle ctiv e view o f stu dy in g. [My initial reason for coming to university] was the run o f the mill thing. . . But now it has turned into, gradually into, just developing how I think. . . . I am finding that the way I am thinking is changing and developing, which is very good, and it wouldn’t happen elsewhere. T h is ch a n g e in o rie n ta tio n h ad p arallels in the w ay sh e ta c k le d essay w riting, alth o u g h th e lik elih o o d th a t sh e w ou ld resp o n d p o sitiv ely to o p p o rtu n itie s to im p ro v e h er stu dy te c h n iq u e co u ld be se en earlier. S h e re c o u n te d se v e ra l in sta n c e s w here sh e h ad su cc essfu lly c h a n g e d her learn in g a t sc h o o l a n d w here sh e h ad so u g h t o u t, an d o b tain e d , h elpful a d v ice from te a c h e rs. A t u niversity , sh e so o n recog n ized th a t differen t d e m a n d s w ere b e in g m ad e o f her, a n d h er tu to r ’s c o m m e n ts triggered a ch a n g e in h er c o n c e p tio n o f essay w riting. T h e e x te n t to w h ich th is ch a n g e d eriv ed from th e a d v ice o f th e tu to r, or from th e stu d e n t’s in sig h t in to h er ow n e x p e rie n c e is, h ow ever, n o t cle ar.

120

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

[W riting essays at university] is different from the ones I wrote in school,. . . For “A " levels, it seem s to be more on style to get you through, but by the time you get to university style isn’t enough. . . . I used to be a bit o f a culprit for a waffley essay, that 1 didn't actually know that m uch about w hat I u'as w ritin g ,.. . and now [it’s] actually having to find out what it is you arc actually writing an essay o n . . . . Before you could get away with being quite airy-fairy about things, as long as it was a nice read for them. S o , now it’s actually getting into the realm s o f having to read those big books about it, and having to understand it yourself. . . . A fter my first essay I had a bit o f a ch at with my tutor. . . . W h at he did, he read it through back to me, and I was the sort o f audience to my own essay, and I thought som e o f it was com pletely terrible, and I thought “W hat can he be thinking?" . . . “ I ju st h aven't expressed what I thought here.” I know I thought it really kind o f strongly; I was really excited about it. . . . [W hen I was given the essay back] I was quite sort o f grumpy about the mark I got, 1 thought I had m uch better ideas than that. . . . T h en you heard it back and, well, I w ould h ave given m yself exactly the sam e m ark, if not lower, because it was really badly expressed.

From this first essay to her second and final essays the student’s grade jumped, as she developed in her approach to essay writing. These develop­ ments seemed to stem from reflecting on the feedback on her first essay and her continuing positive attitude to studying. She worked harder to be sure she understood what she read in preparing for her essays, and it is interesting to find that she then saw understanding as difficult, whereas previously she had considered it fairly easy. In commenting on reading for the next essay, she said: I found it quite frustrating. . . . T h e first time I read it, I really cam e away with the feeling I h ad n ’t actually got anything from it. . . . Because it took a lot o f grinding through to understand it, 1 would skim through it and, o f course, this is the worst thing you can do with som ething like psychology, where you have got to understand every little word, and how it fits together. A few o f the things, I would ju st skim through and got com pletely the wrong m eaning, just b ecause I assum ed it would be a different m e a n in g .. . . [Then, there was] this one day when I thought I m ust be doing this a bit wrong; I m ust be reading it wrong or som ething. So, I ju st read through it a second tim e, very slowly. Som etim es I would read it aloud, that kind o f helped. . . . I think actually this time I understood what they were talking about, rather than just m ade up what they were talking about by m aking little references back to it. . . .

Having to prepare for a philosophy examination toward the end of the year also caused further reflection on study methods, as this student contemplated the implications of a different way of recording her notes.

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

I was thinking about this the other day. I had a small breakthrough in my life— I thought o f writing stuff down. T he way I had always done it before . . . was just, sort of, read through it, and you would note things down on the actual bit o f the book. . . . But I [th o u g h t],.. . while I am doing that, I might as well note it down. . . . You can only underline so many words, and so you get the sort o f seed o f the idea, b u t . . . I kind o f forget what it’s about when 1 am going through it a g a in .. . . I found that happened when I did my essays; they'd be quite ambiguous, because I actually wouldn't know what I was talking about, because I hadn’t remembered what I had read. So, I find now . . . 1 actually take the time to write it down, how I think it, and also you find you get little ideas . . . so you spend a bit o f time writing them down. . . . You think it takes more time, but I don’t think it does actually in the long run, because you actually understand it initially, and you can think about it while it’s really fresh in your brain. I don't know what it was (caused this break th rou gh );.. . it just happened.

The comments of another student provide a further example of how a tutor can provide an impetus for a change in approaches to studying, as long as the student is alert to the possibilities. The tutor had been asking the group to read articles on nursing before tutorials and helping students see how to criticize them. This student then recognized how that could be used in her other work. W e’ve been questioning a lot more about . . . whether they [the authors] actually cover the points that they’ve said they’d cover, and questioning whether the author is biased. T h a t’s really made me think a lot more about what I’m actually rea d in g .. . . I think that’s helped me with my psychology' as well, because I have to keep remembering . . . that they’re only ideas and psychologists’ views on something, and it’s not actually dead s e t .. . . It makes me less trusting o f what I’m reading, but in a way it m akes me feel more independent in my w o rk ,.. . less like I’m being taken in by what they’re writing, if I actually think, “Why are they saying (that)?”

These comments, and those from the previous student, both draw attention to development toward a deep approach stemming from an opportunity, during the process of learning, that the student both recognizes and seizes as a way of improving her ways of studying. This combina­ tion of alertness to opportunity and readiness to change suggests important facets of studying not found previously and may parallel the “sensitivity to context” described as a component of “disposition” (see earlier discussion). It was, however, found in only a small proportion of students. Most of the students showed little general improvement in their studying during the first year and yet saw no need for serious reflection on their studying. Indeed, few even recognized their inadequacies (McCune, 1999).

122

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

T h ese fine-grained analyses o f interview transcripts, particularly where a com plete case study is undertaken, seem to offer an im portant addition to the more abstracted descriptions o f studying. W e still see the way prior experience, the fairly stable characteristics o f the individual, and con cep­ tions o f learning, all seem to affect ways o f studying, but we also see how specific events can interact with established ways o f thinking to produce different outcom es. For exam ple, the student who seem ed to accept all too readily her procrastination and lack o f sustained effort not only drifted through her first year, but also looked for ways o f limiting the effort needed to carry out tasks. T h e other student seem ed to welcome opportunities for improving her ways o f studying, and this enabled her to refine her essay preparation and writing techniques. T h is alertness to possibilities for change, and the readiness to explore dissonance, may well be an im portant precondition to developm ent, which we also see when exam ining an experienced academ ic’s experience of changing his ways o f thinking about teaching. T h is further case study again dem onstrates the need to go beyond the abstraction o f generalized differ­ ences in conceptions to the specific instances in which changes take place, and how that is translated into changes in actions.

CONCEPTIONS AND ST Y L E S OF TEACHING T h e concepts identified in describing student learning have parallels in the ways academ ic staff teach. A t the m ost general level are conceptions of teaching. Below th at level come styles of teaching, which indicate consistency in preferences for particular ways o f teaching, rooted in personality. Approaches to teaching are more affected by specific purposes and individual teaching contexts, whereas teaching methods and techniques cover specific classroom activities. T h e m ost recent phenom enographic research has suggested five con cep­ tions o f teaching, sim ilar to the categories describing conceptions of learning. T h e conceptions are also taken to represent a nested hierarchy in which the more sophisticated conceptions incorporate aspects o f the less developed conceptions (Entwistle & W alker, in press). From a review o f previous studies, Kem ber (1997, 1998) suggested the hierarchy can be seen as three conceptions, with the extrem e categories each subdivided into two as indicated in Fig 5.2. Looking at the extrem es, the least developed conception can be described as teacher focused and content oriented, with an em phasis on the reproduction o f correct information. A t the other end o f this continuum , teaching is seen as student focused, learning oriented,

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

FIG. 5.2.

A hierarchy of conceptions of teaching.

and concerned with conceptual development. These opposite views can be illustrated through the following interview extracts taken, first, from a study by Prosser, Trigwell, and Taylor (1994) (Prosser, personal communi­ cation) and, then, from the review by Kember (1998). T eacher-focused, coruent-oriented It is my duty and responsibility to help stu d en ts develop the specific know ledge an d skills w hich are n eed ed to pass the ex am in atio n s, although I’m fully aw are th at this m ight narrow the kind o f ed u catio n I ani giving to the s t u d e n t s .. . . I put g reat em ph asis on beh aviou ral o b jectiv es an d m aking sure th at I co ver the syllabus thoroughly. In preparing a le c tu r e ,.. . I know exactly w hat n otes I w ant the stu d en ts to get. S tu d en ts d o n ’t have to d ecide w hen to take notes: I d ictate them . Student-focused, learning-oriented I’m aw are o f how m u ch I used to assu m e. I now try to take nothin g for granted and to question my assum ptions about how students learn th in g s.. . . W h a t I w ant to ach ieve . . . is co n fron tin g stu d en ts w ith their precon ceived ideas ab o u t the su bject. . . . [C o n ce p tu al u n d erstan d in g is d eveloped] by arguing abo ut things, [confrontin g p recon cep tion s], and trying to apply i d e a s .. . . W h at w e’re trying to d o in learning physics, is . . . to shift [stu d en ts’] from the layperson’s view, to w hat we w ould call a scientific . . . view.

Other research has described contrasting styles of lecturing that parallel the styles of learning outlined earlier. Indeed, these styles of teaching may well

124

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

Expanding awareness through a nested hierarchy of conceptions

FIG. 5.3.

Components of a sophisticated conception of teaching.

ste m d irectly from th e w ays the te a c h e rs th e m se lv e s prefer to learn (E n tw istle, 1 9 8 8 ). Brow n an d B a h k ta r (1 9 8 3 ) id en tified five styles, b ased m ainly o n th e w ay in fo rm atio n w as o rgan ized an d p re se n te d . S o m e lectu rers p ro d u c e d in effe ctiv e , d iso rgan ize d p re se n ta tio n s (d esc rib ed in tw o c a te g o rie s: am orphous an d self-doubters). A stylistic d ifferen ce co u ld be se en b e tw een oral lec tu re rs w ho w ove in tricate v erb al w ebs, b u t la c k e d c le ar stru ctu re or au dio-visu al su pport (possibly h olists), an d information providers w h o follow ed th eir n o tes clo sely in p ro v id in g a ted io u s a m o u n t o f d e tail (se r ia lists). F inally, th ere w ere th e exemplary lec tu re rs w ho h ad a c le a r se t o f o b je c tiv e s, p la n n e d an d p re se n te d c le ar an d w ell-stru ctu red m aterial, a v o id e d to o m u ch d e tail (p ro v idin g h a n d o u ts or re c o m m e n d e d read in g for th a t p u rp o se ), a n d u sed a u d io -v isu al aid s to en liv en th eir p re se n ta tio n s. W h e n stu d e n ts are ask e d a b o u t th eir e x p e rie n c e s o f lec tu re s, eith e r in in terview s (H o d g so n , 1997; R am sd e n , 1992, 1997) o r th ro u gh e v a lu a tio n q u e stio n n a ire s (M a rsh , 1 9 8 7 ), a c le ar p ictu re em erg es o f w h at c o n stitu te s “g o o d le c tu re s" from the stu d e n t’s p e rsp e ctiv e . T h e y are d esc rib ed in term s o f se v e n m ain c a te g o rie s: level, p a c e , stru ctu re , clarity, e x p la n a tio n , e n th u sia sm , an d e m p ath y . A n d o f th ese, th e c o m m e n ts o f stu d e n ts su g ge st it is th e “ th ree E s”— e x p la n a tio n , e n th u sia sm , an d em p ath y — th a t are the m o st likely to su p p o rt a d eep ap p ro a c h to learn in g . T h e qu ality o f the e x p la n a tio n affec ts th e e x te n t to w h ich stu d e n ts are en c o u ra g e d , an d find it easy, to m a k e se n se o f the to p ic in th eir ow n w ay. E x p la n a tio n s can also be u sed to m o d el th e form s o f arg u m e n t an d u se o f e v id e n ce a d o p te d in the d iscip lin e. B row n a n d A tk in s (1 9 8 8 ) em p h asiz e th e v alu e o f ev o k in g in te lle c tu a l cu riosity th ro u gh th e u se o f p ro b le m s or p a r a d o x e s, an d they sh ow h ow g o o d e x p la n a tio n s d e p e n d on b e in g a p t (b oth to th e to p ic an d to th e stu d e n ts’ e x istin g k n ow led ge) an d o n ex te n siv e ly u sin g e x a m p le s, a n a lo g ie s, m etap h o rs, an d p e rso n al a n e c d o te s. C o m b in in g a su p p o rtin g

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

fram ew ork w ithin the lectu re (serialist) with m any links to related ideas (h olist) is recognizably a versatile style o f lecturing. A lth o u g h su ch d escrip tion s o f co n cep tio n s an d styles o f teach in g have clarified som e o f the m ain differen ces th at ex ist am o n g university teac h e rs’ w ays o f th in kin g abo u t teach in g, they d o n ot d o ju stice to the m any asp e cts th at u nderlie ex celle n t teach in g. R e search on teach in g in sch ool provides m u ch m ore elab o rate d escription s, and draw ing on this p reviou s work E ntw istle and W alk er (in press) h av e su ggested ad d itio n al co m p o n en ts likely to be foun d w ithin the m ost d ev e lo p ed co n cep tio n s. Sc h o o l-b ased research h as identified three m ain form s o f know ledge teach ers use: know ledge o f su b ject m atter, know ledge o f teach in g tec h n iq u es and strategies, an d know ledge o f how their stu d en ts learn. B u t th ese form s im ply teach in g is essentially a co gn itiv e activity, alth ou gh in p ractice each form of know ledge seem s also to h ave an affective co m p o n en t, as su ggested in Fig. 5.3. M oreover, the ex p an d ed aw aren ess o f learn in g and teach in g foun d w ithin the m o st d evelop ed co n cep tio n s o f teach in g arc exem plified in approach es to teaching th at show a strategic alertness to classroom events. A s in the research o n stu d en t learning, how ever, th ese ab stractio n s from university tea c h e rs’ d escrip tion s o f their teach in g presen t an idealized picture, d istan ced from everyday ex p erien ces in the classro o m , w hich arc m ore im m ed iate and n ot alw ays co h e re n t w ith underlying co n cep tio n s. M urray an d M a c d o n a ld (1 997) fou n d th at university teach ers were not alw ays able to teach in the ways they believed they sh ou ld, for various reason s. A s B e n n e tt an d D u n n e (in press) co m m en ted : Research on teachers’ implicit theories . . . [assume] that a teacher’s cogni­ tive and pedagogical behaviours are guided by, and make sense in relation to, a personally held system of beliefs, values and principles. . . . [But] what teachers say and do is mediated by co n textu al. . . [factors which] act either to enable or constrain the enactment o f teacher theories in p ractice.. . . Beliefs and conceptions about teaching and learning gained from interviews may, or may not, be reflected in practices. Contexts, such as those imposed by modularisation or large numbers, mean that teachers may not operate in their preferred way.

TH E E X PER IE N C E O F TEACHING T h e co n cep ts u sed to p resen t co h e re n t th eoretical fram ew orks th us c an n o t fully ex p lain everyday classroom p ractice. A g ain , we can overco m e this lim itation th rou gh a detailed case study, sh ow ing how an ap p ro ach to teach in g d ev elop ed over tim e an d co n sid erin g w hat ad d itio n al insigh ts m ay co m e from teac h ers’ everyday ex p erien ces. In a recen t study, an cxperi-

126

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

enced university teacher reflected on changes in his conceptions of learning and teaching, and the difficulties involved in translating a sophisticated perspective into practice (Entwistle &. Walker, in press). The seeds of a learning-oriented conception of teaching were traced to a dissatisfaction with this teacher’s initial conception of physics, which was also held by most of his colleagues and still underpins teaching and assessment in most undergraduate physics courses. As he began to recog­ nize the problematic nature of knowledge, in general, and considered how his own ways of thinking about physics were changing, he began to experiment with different approaches to teaching. It seems likely that thinking about their own discipline may, generally, be one of the most effective stimuli to changing teaching practice for university teachers, who rarely have had any extensive exposure to pedagogical theory. As this lecturer commented in Entwistle and Walker (in press): O ver time, I becam e increasingly intrigued by the discrepancy betw een my greater com m and o f the concepts, with their wider connections, and the apparent inaccessibility1 o f those concepts and connections to m ost o f my students. I now began to find more interest in epistem ological aspects o f physics, and this interest spilled over from the realm o f private wonderm ent into the pedagogical im perative to share that know ledge, understanding and interest.

This awareness did not translate immediately into effective practice, rather it led to a series of trial-and-error adaptations of teaching. Initially, the approach was directed wholly to showing students the nature of physical knowledge, but most of the students did not respond. They wanted the knowledge presented to be more obviously related to assessment requirements. Rather than abandon the attempt, a “multiply-inclusive” approach was gradually established. As reported in Entwistle and Walker (in press) : My initial attem pts to focus my teaching on these issues and related learning outcom es m et with less su ccess than I w'ould have liked. I experienced indifference, even hostility, to my attem pts to broaden the learning inquiry and encourage reflection on learning itself. T o the ex ten t that this shift o f focus was at the expense o f duly delivered inform ation, it created apparent unease and concern about how this m ight relate to what u'as on the exam in ation papers. I had to develop a more strategic approach, in which this new agenda ran through my teaching like a thread, rather than featuring som ehow as part o f the course. Its nature is m uch more a m atter o f con text than con ten t and this requires a much more considered and multiply inclusive approach to teaching.

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S . S T Y L E S , A N D A P P R O A C H E S

127

O v er tim e, 1 h ave d eveloped a teach in g ap p roach which begins to satisfy sim u ltaneously a tacit d em an d for co n ten t, for u n derstan din g o f co n ten t, for relevance and applicability o f th at co n ten t, an d yet still ch allen ges and attem pts to u nderm ine th ose e x p ectatio n s by only partially fulfilling them . T h is is a m ultiply inclusive strategy, w herein different stu d en ts m ay have different ex p ectatio n s. I also ex p lain th at any sen se o f fru stration am ong stu d en ts about incom pletely fulfilled e x p ectatio n s may be a fun ction o f their ow n lim ited view o f the n atu re o f learning. I attem p t in my teach in g to h ave stu d en ts d evelop their view o f learning itself, as well as co n cep ts em erging from the su bject m atter. W ith in this m ultiply inclusive ap p roach , inform ation is provided in logical order for those who w ant it, bu t with the oft-repeated rider that relying on my lectures for com plete and accu rate inform ation is fraught with d an ger— I m ight be m istaken (as I h ave been m any tim es and n ot realised it until later) or even deliberately m isleading (tem porarily, to m ake a p o in t). For stu d en ts w ho need to relate to oth er co urse co n ten t or to the w orld, there is a th read o f co n v ersatio n m aking su ch links, often u n ex p ected on es. T h is ap p roach is n ot u nu su al; physics teach ers often highlight ex am p les and provide p ractical illustrations o f the ab stract co n cep ts in physics courses. For stu d en ts w ho seek to apply the know ledge, there is at least co n versation al referen ce to th at w hich, again , is n ot unusual. B u t an explicit aw areness of inclusively servin g the interests and learning ap p ro ach es o f a diversity o f stu d en ts seem s to be m uch less com m on , as does an ag en d a for developing stu d en ts’ view s o f learning, and their ability to learn. . . . I d evelop ed the practice o f my teach in g on the basis o f my m ore developed view o f learning and began , for exam p le, to design and use qu estio n s in class to foster en gagem en t, rather th an as a token gestu re, ob tain in g the “ right answ er" from th ose w ho already know it. R espon d in g to stu d e n ts’ qu estio n s (an d the “qu estio n s behind the q u estio n s” ) in ways w hich en cou rage critical th ou gh t and d ialogue, w as equally im portan t. T h e process requires skilful m an ag em en t— to keep d irecting atten tio n to issues th at are ju st beyond the current horizon o f stu d e n ts’ aw areness an d thus stim u late the ex p an sio n of th at a w a r e n e s s.. . . From the poin t o f view o f an ob server, m uch o f w hat 1 am trying to achieve while teach in g m ight n ot be readily discern ible— it m ight look like a fairly stan d ard lecture, co n ten t interspersed with the usual m ix o f qu estio n s, advice, asides and bad jokes. But from my point o f view, as the one teaching, it looks very different, an d my aw areness o f w hat happen s in class co n trasts m arkedly w ith how it used to be. In the early days it w as a m atter o f being prepared, presen tin g co n ten t confiden tly an d accu rately, and being in control. S o m e days it w orked well and oth ers it w as a struggle, an d I never knew qu ite why— it m u st h ave b een the stu d en ts or perhaps the w eath er th at day. Later, as I d eveloped m ore m astery, I could teach in a m ore co n v ersa­ tional style, m ain tain in g a sense o f th eatre, creatin g and takin g opportu n ities to en gage stu d e n ts’ interest and thinking. E xam ples, d em on stration s and

128

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . A N D W A L K E R

questions can be chosen to maximise such engagement and wherever possible to elucidate and challenge students’ preconceptions. The experi­ ence of teaching now, from my point of view, is more akin to a masterful jazz musician improvising and interacting with partners, allowing the instrument itself to speak, to express and inspire— rather than having to clumsily pluck or blow to force a predictable outcome. T h e m etap h o r o f jazz brings o u t an im p ortan t asp e ct o f the teach in g cx p crien c c th at rarely co m es ou t in interview s. In Fig. 5.3 it was in clud ed as the p ractical o u tco m e o f a sop h isticate d co n cep tio n , n am ely “strategic alertn ess to classroom e v e n ts” : the ability to build on ch an ce co m m en ts or a d evelopin g argu m en t in ways th at en gage the atte n tio n and interest o f stu d en ts an d ch allen ge them to see asp e cts o f the su b ject in a d ifferent way. A sim ilar co n clu sio n h as been reach ed in oth er recen t stu dies, w here research ers h ave d escrib ed “ teach ab le m o m en ts” or “ learn in g m o m en ts” (Forest, 1998; Trigw ell &. Prosser, 1997; W oods ¿¡.Jeffrey, 1996). M cA lpine, W esto n , B e au ch am p , C ., W isem an , an d B eau ch am p , J. (1 9 9 9 ), in a study o f exem plary university teach ers, foun d th at alm o st tw o-thirds o f ch an ges to teach in g m eth od an d co n te n t were u n p lan n ed , carried o u t while teach in g w as takin g place rath er th an in p rep aratio n for it. T h e y also noted th at ab o u t h alf the ch an ges were n ot p rom pted by a strategy h avin g failed or a problem h avin g occu rred, bu t rath er by seizing an opportu n ity arising d u ring the process o f teach in g — "n o t the m on itorin g o f stu d en t respon se to their teach in g, b u t m on itorin g for op en in gs to teach provid ed by the stu d e n ts” (p. 120).

D ISC U SSIO N T h is ch ap ter h as focu sed on co n cep ts u sed to d escrib e learn in g an d teach in g in h igh er ed u catio n ; on co n cep tio n s, styles, an d ap p ro ach es; and on the different focu s each o f the three has. T h e lim itation s o f restrictin g d escrip tio n s to th ese an alytic ab stractio n s led to the in tro d u ctio n o f fin e­ grain ed an aly ses o f everyday stu dying and the differing reactio n s to ex p erien ce. T h e se differing levels o f e x p lan atio n arc essen tially c o m p le­ m entary, co n trib u tin g in differen t w ays to the pu rpo ses o f research in this area. W h a t d o they seek to d escrib e and how d o they relate to eac h other?

C o n c e p tio n s, S ty le s , a n d A p p r o a c h e s in L e arn in g a n d T e a c h in g C o n c e p tio n s o f L e a r n in g a n d T e a c h in g . A t the broad est level, we h ave d iscu ssed co n cep tio n s o f learn in g an d teach in g, w hich seem

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

129

to represent the integration o f a person’s knowledge and experience within a general framework o f understanding. T h e categories identified summarize the range o f differences found am ong the com m ents o f students and staff, as they reflect on their views and experiences in higher education. In relation to both learning and teaching, it seem s that five broad categories conflate to a single distinction: the contrast between learning as reproducing knowl­ edge presented by a teacher (and ways o f transm itting inform ation in a form that can be readily assim ilated) and learning as a personal transform ation o f ideas and evidence leading toward conceptual understanding (with a view o f teaching as supporting that endeavour by the stu d en ts). This difference has proved to be o f fundam ental im portance in m aking sense o f the com m ents m ade by both students and staff, and yet the level o f explanation does not convey much sense o f how learning and teaching are carried out to accord with these conceptions. S t y l e s o f L e a r n i n g a n d T e a c h i n g . T h e term styles has been used in various ways in the literature. In the psychological literature it has been widely adopted to convey the m arked difference in preference shown by people as they carry out tasks. This preference seem s to be sufficiently consistent to suggest that it derives from basic personality characteristics, and yet there is an increasing recognition both that styles can be modified by instruction (Sternberg, 1997) and that the strategies used to carry out specific tasks may show considerable variability (Laurillard, 1979). In other words, there m ust be an interaction between the style and the nature and perceived dem ands o f the task, such that stability can only be relative. Pask (1988) described his construct with differing em phases that drew attention to learning or conceptual styles (which showed preference and a certain long-term consistency), learning strategies (which could be described within the sam e dichotomy but were task related), and learning processes (which indicated the thinking processes used to carry out the task). He called the processes comprehension learning and operation learning, but these categories still carry the m eanings o f holist and serialist styles. A p p r o a c h e s to L e a r n i n g a n d S t u d y i n g . In som e ways, ap ­ proaches are similar to styles. Studen ts show som e consistency over a range o f tasks and situations, reflecting underlying m otives and the intentions that stem from them. T h e processes used by students in adopting an approach to studying can be seen in terms o f categories used by Pask (1976). For exam ple, a deep approach depends on the alternation between com pre­ hension learning (relating ideas and looking for patterns) and operation learning (checking and using evidence; see Tab les 5.1 and 5.2). Continuing dom inance o f one preference over another reflects a distinctive style,

13 0

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

whereas the appropriateness o f the choice o f process to task represents versatility. T h e deep approach to learning also may also have its own stylistic elem ent. Som e people seem to have a strong drive to seek understanding in their own terms, irrespective o f the task requirem ents or the context. A s with extrem es of Pask’s (1976) styles, this can lead to lower levels o f perform ance, where conceptual understanding is not a prime criterion of assessm ent. In the early years o f undergraduate study, the strategic ap­ proach, com bined with low levels on the “surface apath etic” dim ension correlates strongly with grades. In later years, and in forms o f assessm ent that give substantial weight to conceptual understanding, the deep strate­ gic approach proves to be the m ost adaptive (Biggs, 1999; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ram sden, 1992). T h ese findings reinforce the conclusion that approaches cannot be simply characteristics o f the individual. Although they reflect personal history and elem ents o f personality, they are also strongly influenced by teaching, assessm ent, and the whole learning environm ent (as Biggs argued in this volum e, chap. 4). It is difficult to accept a concept as being both stable and variable, and as having generality in definition while requiring specificity in indicating the way it will be exhibited in differing situations. T h ese apparent paradoxical com binations o f opposites do, nevertheless, accurately represent the complexity o f the phenom ena the constructs are intended to describe.

Analytic A bstraction s an d E v e ry d ay E x p erien ce In both the fine-grained analyses o f study behavior and the reflective retrospective on teaching, the value o f sensitivity and alertness to context com es through strongly. T h e m eaning o f events and their potential for growth are recognized and the opportunities are built on. T h ese individuals “seize the m om ent” and use it either to improve their own capacity to learn or to help others to do so. This potentially im portant insight could only be found through fine-grained analyses o f this kind. T his research is in the tradition o f interpretative research: it is not based on hypotheses, but rather it seeks to describe, and perhaps explain, aspects o f experience. O n their own, case studies can offer no more than indicative evidence, and yet they may be im portant in helping students and staff m atch the m eaning o f the concepts to their own experience. They may thus play a crucial role in com m unicating ideas about learning and teaching in ways that influence practice.

5.

C O N C E P T I O N S . S T Y L E S , AND A P P R O A C H E S

131

P ed ag o g ic al Fertility an d R eco g n izab le Reality Th e main purpose o f this area o f research on student learning has been to understand the nature o f learning and teaching transactions in higher education, with the ultim ate goal o f im proving practice. For this reason, the level o f explanation and the choice o f constructs and conceptual fram e­ works cannot be based solely on the views o f the theorist. There have to be judgm ents both o f realism (to what extent the explanation is recognized by participants) and o f what has been called pedagogical fertility (Entwistle, 1994; Entwistle &. H ounsell, 1987). Psychologists put as one hallm ark o f a good theory its fertility, which m eans its ability to generate new lines o f research. In education there is a need for theories and concepts that are also pedagogically fertile, which generate ideas for innovations or new ways o f thinking about learning and teaching. T h e constructs and conceptual frameworks emerging from the research on student learning seem to show both forms o f fertility. T h e burgeoning literature on student learning that draws on the distinction between deep and surface approaches is evidence enough in research terms. T h e readi­ ness with which colleagues accept and use the distinction in staff develop­ m ent is an indication that the terms describe a “recognizable reality” (see Entwistle, 1997). T h is acceptan ce may, in part, be due to the origin o f the concepts in descriptions o f studen ts’ experiences o f learning, but it may also be due to the accessibility o f the terms and the connotative nature o f the concepts. S ta ff and more experienced students, irrespective o f subject area, can relate to the core m eanings and relationships identified in the literature and create more specific m eanings in relation to the nature and dem ands of their own discipline. W hen applied to a different subject m atter or context, therefore, they act not just as analytic tem plates but as heuristic tools with which to think about the specific needs and problems presented by each learning context. T h a t is easy to argue, and with som e justification, and yet the effect on practice has been neither as strong, nor as widespread, as had been anticipated.

C hanging C on cep tion s an d A cad em ic Practice A ttem pts at improving the academ ic practice o f both students and staff have, in the past, been largely directed at the level o f techniques: study skills training for students and teaching tips and techniques for staff. T h ese m ethods have generally m et with only m odest success, som etim es with none at all. They offer im m ediate applicability, which is initially attractive,

132

E N T W IS T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

and yet they provide no guidance about how or why these techniques should be used in everyday learning or teaching. O nly with the type of understanding o f the context and the process that com es from a developed conception can the m ethods come under the control o f the individual and m ake sense to them. T h is recognition has led to a much greater em phasis on changing the less adaptive conceptions. T h e evidence from first-year students presented here suggests only patchy developm ent in the skill o f studying, combined with a substantial resistance to study skills advice. Discussions offer one way o f engaging studen ts’ interest in improving their study m ethods (Gibbs, 1981; van Overw alle, Segebarth, & Goldchstein, 1989), and yet they may fail to improve conceptions o f studying in ways that lead to more effective studying. It may also be necessary to adopt a staged process in which direct advice is given first, and attem pts to develop conceptions come later when students have more experience and are more likely to recognize the value o f reflecting on their studying (Biggs, 1987). Such differentiated provision in supporting studying is, however, still not well developed, let alone evaluated. Sta ff tend to look for specific advice on, say, better ways o f presenting inform ation, conducting tutorials, or using learning technology, and yet the techniques in them selves do not guarantee im proved effectiveness. Each m ethod depends crucially on the purpose for which it is used and the way in which it is im plem ented, neither o f which can be readily discerned from a description o f the approach. They can, however, be deduced within a conceptual framework that interprets how teaching and assessm ent, gener­ ally, influence the quality o f student learning. Reflecting on on e’s own experience in the light o f carefully chosen case studies o f teachers within the sam e general subject area may be a good starting point for bringing about conceptual change. A n appropriate conceptual framework can then be offered, once the reality has been established through exam ples (see, for exam ple, Brockbank & McGill, 1998; Cow an, 1998). A recent study explored various m eans o f prompting conceptual change am ong lecturers and found that exposure to alternative conceptions was the m ost successful strategy, in terms o f both general appreciation and successful im pact (H o, 1998): The participants particularly valued two aspects: that an in-depth reflection was facilitated by questions that addressed fundam ental issues o f teaching and learning, and that an analysis o f one’s own thought and practices was made possible with the support o f a systematic framework about issues in teaching and learning, (p.3 2)

O f course, opportunities to reflect on personal experience against a conceptual framework can be introduced not just in staff developm ent

5.

C O N C E P T IO N S , S T Y L E S . A N D

APPR O AC H ES

133

workshops, but also whenever departm ents or course teams are reviewing their practice as part of normal course development or quality assurance procedures (van Driel, Verloop, V an W erven, & Dekkers, 1997). The dilemma facing both educational developers and student advisers is how best to bring together experience and conceptual frameworks. C on ­ ceptions cannot be changed simply by presenting alternatives, and experi­ ence will not lead to change unless it is interpreted against a broader framework o f understanding. Such is the paradox at the heart o f this situation. Conceptual change seems to depend on engagement with experi­ ence in ways that promote reflection, and this is true for both staff and students. How to achieve this is, however, much less clear.

R E FE R E N C E S Atkinson, J. W ., & Feather, N . T . (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley. Bennett, S. N ., &. Dunne, E. (in press). The acquisition and development of core skills in higher education and employment. Buckingham, England: O pen University Press/SRHE. Bereiter, C. (1990). Aspects of an educational learning theory. Review of Educational Research,60, 603-624. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J. B. (1993). W hat do inventories of students' learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educatiotuil Psychology, 63, 3-19. Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, England: Open University Press. Boekaerts, M. (1999). M otivated learning: Studying student*situation transactional units. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 14, 41-55. Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press/SRHE. Brown, G. A., & Atkins, M. ( 1988). Effective teaching in higher education. London: Methuen. Brown, G. A., & Bahktar, M. (1983). Styles of lecturing. Loughborough, England: Loughborough University Press. Cowan, J. (1998). On becoming an innovative university teacher. Buckingham, England: Open University Press/SRHE. Edelman, G. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire: On the matter of mind. London: Penguin Books. Entwistle N. J. (1979). Stages, levels, styles or strategics: Dilemmas in the description of thinking. Educational Review, 31, 123-132. Entwistle, N . J. (1988). Styles of learning and teaching. London: Fulton. Entwistle, N. J. (1994, June). Generative concepts and pedagogical fertility: Com m unicat­ ing research findings on student learning. Presidential address to the European A ssocia­ tion for Research on Learning and Instruction. EARL1 News, 9-15. Entwistle, N .J. (1995). Frameworks for understanding as experienced in essay writing and in preparing for examinations. Educatimial Psychologist, 30, 47-54.

134

E N T W I S T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

Entwistle, N .J . (1997). C ontrasting perspectives on learning. In F. M arton, D. J. H ounsell & N .J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed., pp. 3 -2 2 ). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish A cadem ic Press. Entwistle, N . J. (1998a). Im proving teaching through research on student learning. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 73-1 1 2 ). N ew York: G arland. Entwistle, N . J. (1998b). A pproaches to learning and forms o f understanding. In B. D art and G. Boulton-Lew is (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 72-101). M el­ bourne, A ustralia: A ustralian Council for Educational Research. Entwistle, N . J. (2000). A pproaches to studying and levels o f understanding: T h e influences o f teaching and assessm ent. In J. C . Sm art (E d.), Higher education: Handbook of theory a/rd research (Vol. 15, pp. 156-218). New York: A gath on Press. Entwistle N . J., & Entwistle, A. C . (1991). C ontrasting forms o f understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205-227. Entwistle N . J., & H ounsell, D. J. (1987, A pril). Concepts and communication in student learning and cognitive psychology. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, C ognitive Psychology Section Conference, St. Jo h n ’s C ollege, O xford, England. Entwistle, N . J., & M arton, F. (1994). Knowledge objects: Understandings constituted through intensive academ ic study. British Journal o f Educatiom l Psychology, 64, 161-178. Entwistle, N . J-, & N apuk, S. (1997). Mind maps and knowledge objects. Organising and explaining understanding in essays and examinations. Research Report. University of Edinburgh, England, C entre for Research on Learning and Instruction. Entwistle, N .J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Entwistle, N . J., & T ait, H. (1990). A pproaches to learning, evaluations o f teaching, and preferences for contrasting academ ic environm ents. Higher Education, 19, 169-194. Entwistle N . J. & W alker, P. (in press). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions o f teaching. In N . H ativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education. Dordrecht, T h e N etherlands: Kluwer. Forest, J. J. F. (1998). University teachers and instruction: Im portant them es for a global discussion. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: International perspectives (pp. 3 5 72). New York: G arland G ibbs, G. (1981). Teaching students to learn: A student-centred approach. M ilton Keynes, England: O pen University Press. H o, A. (1998). A conceptual change staff developm ent programm e: Effects as perceived by participants International Journal of Academic Development, 3, 24-38. H odgson, V. (1997). Lectures and the cxpcricnce o f relevance. In F. M arton, D. J. Hounscll, & N . J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (2nd ed., pp. 159-171). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish A cadem ic Press. Janssen, P. J. (1996). Studaxology: T h e expertise students need to be effective in higher education. Higher Education, 31, 117-141. Kem ber, D . (1997). A reconceptualisation o f the research into university academ ics' conceptions o f teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255-275. Kem ber, D. (1998). T each in g beliefs and their im pact on studen ts’ approach to learning. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 1-25). M elbourne, A ustralia: A ustralian C ouncil for E ducational Research. Laurillard, D. M. (1979). T h e processes o f student learning. Higher Education, 8, 395-409. M arsh, H . (1987). Stu d en ts’ evaluations o f university teaching: Research findings, m eth­ odological issues, and directions for future research. [Special issue |. International Journal of Educational Research, II (3).

5.

C O N C E PT IO N S, S T Y L E S . AND A P P R O A C H E S

13 5

M arton, F. (1994). Phenomenography. In T . H usen & N . Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia o f education (pp. 4 4 2 4 -4 4 2 9 ). O xford, England: Pcrgamon. M arton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. M ahwah, N J: Erlbaum. M arton, F., D ali’A lba, G ., & Beaty, E. (1993). C onceptions o f learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 2 7 7-300. M arton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). O n qualitative differences in learning. I. O utcom e and process. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 46, 4-1 1 . M arton, F., &. Saljo, R. (1997). A pproaches to learning. In F. M arton, D. J. H ounsell, & .N . J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience o f learning (2nd ed. pp. 3 9 -5 8 ). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish A cadem ic Press. M cA lpine, L., W eston, C ., Beaucham p, C ., W isem an C ., & Beaucham p, J. (1999). Building a m etacognitive model o f reflection. Higher Education, 37, 105-131. M cC une, V. (1998). A cadem ic developm ent during the first year at university. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 35 4 -3 5 8 ). O xford, England: O xford Brookes University, C entre for S ta ff and Learning D evelopm ent. M cC une, V. & Entwistle, N . J. (1999). First-year studen ts’ perceptions o f course work outcom es. In C . Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Learning outcomes (pp. 2 16-226). Oxford, England: Oxford Brookes University, Centre for Staff and Learning Development. M cC une, V. (1999, A u gu st). Deveiofmient of first-year students’ conceptions of essay writing. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Gothenburg. M essick, S., & A ssociates (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, J. H. F. (1991). Study orchestration: T h e m anifestation, interpretation and consequences o f contextualised approaches to studying. Higher Education, 22, 297-316. Meyer, J. H. F., Parsons, P., & D unne, T . T . (1990). Individual study orchestrations and their association with learning outcom e. Higher Education, 20, 67 -8 9 . Miller, C. M . L., & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the mark: A study of the examination game. London: Society for Research in H igher Education. Murray, K., & M acdonald R. (1997). T h e disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claim ed educational practice. Higher Education, 33, 3 3 1 -3 4 9 . Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies o f learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148. Pask, G . (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style. In R. R. Schm eck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 8 3 -1 0 0 ). New York: Plenum Press. Perkins, D. N . (1998). W hat is understanding? In M. S. W iske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding. Linking research with practice (pp. 3 9 -5 7 ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Perkins, D. N ., Jay, E., & Tishm an, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1-21. Pintrich, P. R., & G arcia, T . (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and m otivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C . E. W einstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cogniton, and learning (pp. 113-133). H illsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates. Prosser, M ., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. Buckingham , England: O pen University Press. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., and Taylor, P. (1994). A phenom enographic study o f academ ics’ conceptions o f science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-232. Ram sden, P. (1979). Studen t learning and perceptions o f the academ ic environm ent. Higher Education, 8, 4 1 1 -428. R am sden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: K ogan Page.

136

E N T W I S T L E , M C C U N E . AND W A L K E R

R am sden, P. (1997). T h e context o f learning in academ ic departm ents. In F. M arton, D. J. H ounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience o f learning (2nd cd., pp. 198-216). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish A cadem ic Press. Siiljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective. 1. Some common-sense conceptions. (Report 76). Gothenburg, Sweden: University o f Gothenburg, Department of Education. Snow, R. E., C o m o , L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and cognitive functions. In D. C . Berliner & R. C . Calfree (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 2 4 3 -3 1 0 ). New York: M acm illan. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. C am bridge, England: C am bridge University Press. Tait, H., Entwistle, N . J., & M cC une, V. (1998). A S S IS T : A reconceptualisation of the A pproaches to Studying Inventory. In C . R ust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Improving students as learners (pp. 2 62-271). O xford, England: O xford Brookes University, C entre for S ta ff and Learning D evelopm ent. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1997). Tow ards an understanding o f individual acts o f teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 16, 241-252. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N ., V an W erven, H. I., and Dckkers, H. (1997). T eachers' craft knowledge and curriculum innovation in higher engineering education. Higher Education, 34, 105-122. van O verw alle, F., Scgebarth, K., &. G oldchstein, M. (1989). Improving perform ance of freshmen through attributional testim onies from fellow students. British Journal of Educational Psychohgy, 59, 75-85. Verm unt, J. (1998). T h e regulation o f constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. W einstein, C . E., Goetz, E. T ., & A lexander, P. A . (1988). Learning and study strategies. New York: A cadem ic Press. W esten, D. (1996). Psychology: Mind, brain and culture. New York: Wiley. W oods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments. Buckingham , England: O pen Universi­ ty Press.

6 The Lived Space of Learning: An Inquiry Into Indigenous Australian University Students’ Experiences of Studying Gillian Boulton-Lewis Queensland University of Technology Ference M arton The University of Hong Kong, China, and Gothenburg University, Sweden Lynn W ilss Queensland University of Technology

T his chapter is concerned with how to describe learning. This is considered first with regard to other theoretical perspectives presented in this book and then from the perspective o f phenomenography. T he focus is on learning by Indigenous A ustralian university students. The main difference between our perspective and those described in other chapters is that in our phenomenographically inspired paradigm we are looking at the world with the learners and trying to describe it as they see it rather than looking at their learning as outsiders.

WAYS OF DESCRIBING LEARNING Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) reviewed cognitive styles and defined them as “people’s characteristic and typically preferred modes o f processing information" p. 700, which are a subset o f the general construct of style, that is, a distinctive or characteristic manner o f acting. He described thinking styles as preferred ways o f using abilities and as one m anifestation of research on cognitive styles. His approach to styles is based on a theory of m ental self-government in the belief that styles o f governm ent arc a

137

13 8

BOULTON-LEVV1S, M A R TO N . AND W IL S S

reflection o f the way people organize them selves as individuals. He propos­ es that people have a profile o f styles that are as im portant in what happens to them in life as to the way they think. T h ese thinking styles are variable across tasks; differ in the strength o f preference; have som e flexibility; are mostly socialized, m easurable and teachable; vary across the lifespan; are valued in som e contexts and not others; are neither good or bad; and should not be confused with abilities. Sternberg has proposed that styles can serve as an im portant interface between personality and cognition. T h e nature o f cognitive style has been investigated and described com pre­ hensively by Riding (1997). A fter reviewing the literature on styles and their descriptions, he and colleagues concluded they could all be grouped into two principle cognitive style dim ensions: w holist-analytic and verbalimagery. T h e w holist-analytic style dim ension is concerned with “whether an individual tends to process inform ation in wholes or parts" (p. 30). T h e verbal-im agery style dim ension is concerned with “whether an individual is inclined to represent inform ation during thinking verbally or in mental pictures” (p. 30). Riding defined style according to T en n an t (1988) as “an individual’s characteristic and consistent approach to organizing and processing infor­ m ation” (p. 30). He distinguished between style and strategies on the grounds that style probably has a physiological basis and is fairly fixed for the individual, whereas strategies may be learned to cope with situations and tasks. H e explained that the latter may be m ethods o f using styles to m ake the best o f situations and that in the literature the term learning style is som etim es used to refer to what he considers a strategy. W ith regard to learning behavior, it is proposed that wholists benefit from structuring of m aterial whereas analytics should be able to impose their own structure; im agers learn best from pictorial m aterial whereas verbalizers learn best through verbal m eans. T h ere arc som e significant interactions between style and educational achievem ent, but these depend also on variations in teaching: analytics prefer to have control o f their own learning whereas wholists have no particular preference. M ost learners are attracted to m aterials that suit their style, underestim ate their perform ance on subjects that do not suit their style, and overestim ate their perform ance on those that do. Kolb devised a learning style inventory (Sm ith & Kolb, 1986), which is designed to assess an individual’s preferred learning style, that is, in terms of how a person deals with ideas and day-to-day situations. It provides learners with inform ation about strengths and weaknesses in accom plishing tasks, solving problems, relating to and m anaging others, and realizing natural career choice preferences. T he inventory m easures an individual’s relative position on the abstract-concrete (how we perceive new inform ation) and the active-reflective (how we process what we perceive) dim ensions.

6.

T H E LIV ED S P A C E O F LEA RN IN G

139

People are separated into one o f the four quadrants o f these dim ensions and can be described and lab eled in term s o f four basic learning styles (accom m odator, diverger, assim ilator, and converger), which determ ine how people go about their learning. Learning style is shaped by factors including the following: personality type, academ ic training (that is, learning how to learn), career experience, current jobs, and tasks. Sm ith and Kolb (1986) argued that “ learning style is not a fixed trait but a current state o f mind or o f operating” (p. 5). Biggs and Entwistle (1997a, 1997b) have both been concerned with inventories to m easure approaches to learning. Biggs identified deep, surface, and achieving approaches, each o f which includes m otives and strategies and determ ine how students go about their learning. Generally, if a student adopts a surface approach, the intention is to m eet the minimum require­ m ents; a deep approach rests on intrinsic interest and the intention to understand; an achieving approach may be com bined with a surface or deep approach and the intention is to enhance ego or self-esteem. Entwistle has developed a series o f inventories to m easure studen ts’ approaches to learning. Use o f the inventories in studies has typically produced three or four factors that represent deep, surface, strategic, and apathetic approaches to studying. Com m only, apathetic and surface ap ­ proaches are found in students at risk o f failure. A deep approach is characterized by behaviors such as seeking meaning, relating ideas, using evidence, and being interested in ideas. A surface or apathetic approach is characterized by lack o f understanding, lack of purpose, syllabus boundedness, and fear o f failure. A strategic approach is focused on organized studying, time m anagem ent, monitoring effectiveness, and achievem ent m otivation. Relationships between these approaches and academ ic perform ance are fairly consistent, with positive correlations between perform ance and the strategic approach and negative correlations between perform ance and the surface or apathetic approach. High scores on the deep approach arc more likely to relate to academ ic success later in a degree course where dem onstration o f conceptual understanding may be required. T he invento­ ries also m easure preparation for higher education in terms o f knowledge and skills, conceptions o f learning, learning and study skills, influences on studying, and preferences for deep and surface features in the learning environm ent. They provide a description o f how students at a particular time go about their study and what other factors influence them.

S ty le s an d A p p ro ach es: D ifferences an d Sim ilarities In the theoretical perspectives considered earlier, we have a range of different descriptions o f learning. Sternberg’s (1995, 1997) work was

140

BOULTON-LEVV1S, M A R TO N . AND W IL S S

concerned with describing and m easuring characteristic and preferred m odes o f using abilities in processing information. T h ese styles are variable and flexible across tasks and are mostly learned. Riding (1991, 1997) described cognitive styles that can be grouped into two dim ensions and arc concerned with how individuals process and represent inform ation. He believed styles have a physiological base and strategies may be learned to use styles to the best advantage. Kolb (Sm ith