This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 04:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology:An International Journal ofExperimental Educational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Students’ Preference for FieldDependence‐Independence TeacherCharacteristicsOlivia N. Saracho aa University of Maryland, Department of Curriculum &Instruction , College Park, Maryland 20742, USAPublished online: 25 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Olivia N. Saracho (1991) Students’ Preference for FieldDependence‐Independence Teacher Characteristics, Educational Psychology: AnInternational Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 11:3-4, 323-332, DOI:10.1080/0144341910110308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Psychology, Vol. 11, Nos 3 and 4, 1991 323

Students' Preference for FieldDependence-Independence TeacherCharacteristics

OLIVIA N. SARACHO, University of Maryland, Department of Curriculum &Instruction, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

ABSTRACT The study explored whether FI students would rank certain FI teachers'characteristics as more important for success than would FD students. Similarly, it wasexamined whether FD students would rank certain FD teacher characteristics as moreimportant for successful teaching than would FI students. The subjects consisted of 50female teachers (25 FD and 25 FI) and their 844 5-year-old classroom children (422females and 422 males) attending an all day early childhood program. The teachers andchildren were administered the appropriate form of the Embedded Figures Test tocharacterise them as more FD or FI. Students rated FDI teacher characteristics. Arepeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the students'preference for the FDI teacher characteristics was found to be significant by the Wilks'Lambda Critierion. Significant univariate F ratios are discussed. Significant interactionswere found for: (1) the teachers' cognitive style and sex (p<0.01); (2) the teachers'cognitive style, sex, and the FDI teacher characteristics (p<0.001); (3) the teachers'cognitive style and the FDI teacher characteristics (p<0.001).

Researchers investigating the teachers' classroom performance and ways to improvethat performance suggests a reciprocal effect of student and teacher cognitive style. Anelement of cognitive functioning which has received a great deal of attention iscognitive style. Cognitive style influences teachers' performance (Saracho, 1988).

Cognitive styles are broad, systematic features influencing a person's responses to avariety of circumstances (Anastasi, 1988). One important dimension of cognitive stylethat has been widely studied is that of field dependence-independence (FDI). Studiesshow that this dimension of cognitive style influences an individual's perceptual style,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

324 O. N. Saracho

personality, intelligence and social behavior (Witkin et al., 1974, 1972, 1977). Cogni-tive styles are characteristic modes that are observed in an individual's perceptual orintellectual activities; they constitute stable, self-consistent forms of adaptation, andthey develop a relationship between cognitive and personal/affective spheres (Brod-zinsky, 1982). Saracho and Spodek (1981) compare field dependent (FD) and fieldindependent (FI) individuals.

Field dependent individuals:

(1) rely on the surrounding perceptual field;(2) experience their environment in a relatively global fashion by conforming to the

effects of the prevailing field or context;(3) are dependent on authority;(4) search for facial cues in those around them as a source of information;(5) are strongly interested in people;(6) get closer to the person with whom they are interacting;(7) have a sensitivity to others which helps them to acquire social skills;(8) prefer occupations which require involvement with others.

In contrast, field independent individuals:

(1) perceive objects as separate from the field;(2) can abstract an item from the surrounding field and solve problems that are

presented and reorganised in different contexts;(3) experience an independence from authority which leads them to depend on their

own standards and values;(4) are orientated towards active striving;(5) appear to be cold and distant;(6) are socially detached, but have analytic skills;(7) prefer occupations that allow them to work by themselves (p. 154).

A relationship exists between FDI and performance in proportional reasoning, whenrelevant-irrelevant information is presented in the task (Nummedal & Collea, 1981).Niaz (1989) also found that proportional reasoning tasks contain field effects. FDstudents are considered to be highly influenced by the structure of the perceptual fieldand lack an articulated conceptual framework. FI individuals tend to be capable ofabstracting and organising information more spontaneously. For these students, acqui-sition activities may provide an opportunity to activate this capability and to encodecritical ideas immediately (Kiewra & Frank, 1988). For the FD individuals, who mayhave less efficient memory (Frank, 1983) and the tendency to approach a task rigidly,the main benefit of acquisition activities may be acquiring external-storage rather thanimmediate encoding. Apparently, the style of the FD learner has a debilitating effectduring immediate encoding situations, but need not inhibit learning when sufficientopportunity to encode externally stored factual material is available (Kiewra & Frank,1988). Kiewra & Frank (1988) found that FI learners generally achieved higher scoreson factual and higher-order tests than did FD learners. Paramo and Tinajero (1990)found that FI children do better than FD children in subject areas such as Spanish,mathematics, natural sciences and social sciences.

Evidence suggests that cognitive style influences the teachers' classroom behaviors,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Student Ranking of Teacher Characteristics 325

which require either a more social or more personal orientation. Thus, teachers'cognitive styles affect how they interact with others and select a more social or a moreabstract curriculum content (Saracho, 1989). Specifically, Mahlios (1981) examinedthe FD and FI teachers' instructional preferences and methods to determine if thedifferences of the teachers' instructional behavior represented cognitive style differ-ences in actual classroom teaching. He found that FD teachers usually interactedsignificantly more with their students in small groups and individually, while FIteachers usually initiated significantly more academic interactions with their studentsas a whole class. Saracho (1987) showed that the teachers' cognitive style influencedinstruction in a kindergarten classroom. The FD teacher provided simple, short andconcrete activities, whereas the FI teacher provided self-explanatory and self-correct-ing activities. The FD teacher also instructed more in small groups than did the FIteacher.

The above studies show that the teachers' instructional behaviors relate to theirdegree of FDI. The teachers' and students' cognitive styles influence their preferencesfor specific instructional techniques. Thus, it is essential to consider the interaction ofthese individuals' cognitive styles in the classroom and the effects on the teaching-learning process.

Classroom interaction may engender differences in student and teacher behaviorsrelated to their cognitive style. Thus, the cognitive styles of the participants can affecttheir perceptions of the learning experience. For instance, FD teachers and studentsmay favor situations that require independently generated problem-solving strategies.FI students and teachers have been found to be more content orientated, while FDteachers and students tend to share a greater interpersonal orientation (Witkin et al.,1977). As a result, the content of the FI students may not be well received by FDteachers and the interpersonal orientation of the FD students may not be useful in theclassroom of a FI teacher.

The same may be true when approaching learning and memory tasks. Teachers whostructure and use instructional strategies that are consistent with their own cognitivestyles, may influence learning in a positive or negative way depending on theirstudents' cognitive style. Packer and Bain (1978) found that the students' judgmentsof their teachers were affected by their teachers' cognitive styles, with the more FDteachers receiving more positive ratings than the more FI teachers. The resultsindicated that FD teachers were superior to FI teachers for FD students, whereas FIteachers were superior for FI students. These results suggest that cognitive style andteacher-student compatibility make a difference within the educational setting. Thisinfluence may relate to the relative satisfaction and performance both perceive. Theseresults suggest that the interpersonal orientation of the FD students may not be usefulin the classroom of a FI teacher and vice versa. Such influence may relate to therelative satisfaction and performance both perceive.

The present study aimed to extend in several ways the existing research exploringinteractions between student and teacher cognitive styles. This study sought to resolvethe influence of teacher-student cognitive style differences and its possible interactionwith certain relevant educational factors that were not considered in previous research.The educational corollary to this work would hypothesise that FI students would rankcertain FI teachers' attributes or characteristics as more important for success thanwould FD students. Similarly, it could be hypothesised that FD students would rankcertain FD teacher attributes or characteristics as more important for successfulteaching than would FI students. The present study was undertaken to determine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

326 O. N. Saracho

whether FD and FI students would systematically reflect a greater preference for task-orientated or socially orientated characteristics of teachers.

Methods

Subjects

The sample was drawn from 150 teachers working in early childhood centers inMaryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Texas. Based on their EFT scores,25 extreme FD teachers and 25 extreme FI were selected. The subjects consisted of 50female teachers (25 FD and 25 FI) and their 844 5-year-old classroom children (422females and 422 males) attending all-day early childhood programs. This finalsampling represented the top-scoring third (FD) and the bottom scoring third (FI) ofthose who took the Preschool Embedded Figures Test. Preliminary analyses revealedno significant sex differences for cognitive style. Therefore, the sample consisted of431 FD and 413 FI children.

Measures

The study used several instruments: the adult (group) and the preschool children'sforms of the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) to measure cognitive style, the FieldDependent-Independent Characteristics (FDIC) Scale to compare FD and FI teachercharacteristics, and a teacher's questionnaire to collect demographic information fromteachers.

The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), developed by Olman et al. (1971) isthe most frequently used measure of FDI. It consists of 18 complex figures, eachhaving one of eight forms embedded within it. The task is to locate and trace as manyof the simple forms as possible during two 5-minute test periods. The greater thenumber of simple forms identified correctly, the greater the personal's relative fieldindependence. The reliability for the Group Embedded Figures Test is 0.82 (Oltmanetal., 1971).

The Preschool Embedded Figures Test (PEFT, Coates, 1972) is a measure of FDI,which has been standardised for children of ages 3-5. Reliability estimates for thismeasure range from 0.69 to 0.93 (Coates, 1972; Saracho, 1984,1985,1986). This taskrequires children to identify, by finger-outlining, a target shape (triangle) within acomplex black and white design context. The reliability estimates for the PreschoolEmbedded Figures Test range from 0.69 to 0.91 (Coates, 1972).

The Field Dependent-Independent Characteristics (FDIC) Scale is an instrument of10 statements describing specific FD and FI teacher characteristics (see Table I).Students rated on a 3-point scale how well each statement described how much theyliked that characteristic in their teacher. Students were asked to rate on a 3-point scaleeach characteristic. Five statements reflected more socially orientated characteristics ofteachers and five other statements reflected a greater orientation to the task ofteaching. These statements were obtained from teacher and student descriptions ofcharacteristics they liked in their teachers. The descriptions that best reflected the FDIdimension were used. These statements were modified so children could understandthem. The following are examples of such modifications:

Example 1. The characteristic, "I like for my teacher to be influenced by authority

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Student Ranking of Teacher Characteristics 327

figures or by peers", was modified to "I like for my teacher to do what others tellhim/her to do".

Example 2. The characteristic, "I like for my teacher to like to have people aroundhim/her", was modified to "I like for my teacher to work and play with us".

Statements were validated by using three panel of experts:

(1) teachers of young children;(2) 5-year-old children;(3) experts in cognitive style.

Since coefficient alpha is a general reliability coefficient which encompasses both theSpearman-Brown prophecy formula and the Kuder-Richardson 20, it was computedfor this multiple-item scale. Alpha coefficients of internal consistency for the sample inthis study yielded a 0.68 for FD items and 0.74 for FI items.

Procedures

The teachers and children were administered the appropriate form of the EmbeddedFigures Test to characterise them as more FD or FI. Children were individuallyadministered the PEFT and teachers were administered the EFT in a group situationto determine their cognitive style.

The FDIC Scale was individually administered to help the student rate the FD andFI teacher characteristics. Although many have avoided the necessity of specifying thecharacteristics associated with being rated as a good teacher, Dor-Shave & Peleg(1989) have found that student behavior may be used as a reliable measure of'goodness' as seen from their point of view. To help children understand the 3-pointscale, children were presented with three boxes (small, medium and large) andchildren selected the box that indicated the characteristics they liked in a teacher. Thescore for each child was obtained by recording a three for a large box, a two for themedium box, a one for the small box and a zero if the child did not like the teacher thatwas described. The score consists of the total numbers for each box.

Design

The design of the study involved three blocking factors: sex (male or female),cognitive style of classroom teacher (FD or FI), and the difference between the FDIcharacteristics with repeated measures on the third factor.

Unit of Analysis

A controversial issue in the research on student ratings of instruction has been whichunit of analysis (teachers or students) is most appropriate to a particular investigation.In order to address general questions about the relationships among student ratingsabout their preference for FDI teacher characteristics, it is important to eliminate theindividual differences among students—that is, the way in which individual studentsreact to a particular teaching method or style—and attempt to differentiate among thecharacteristics of the teacher. For this reason, students were used as the unit ofanalysis in this investigation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

328 O. N. Saracho

TABLE I. FDI characteristics

Field independent Field dependent

Employ special defences such asintellectualisation and isolation (FI 1)

Be dependent upon her/his own valuesand standards (FI 2)

Be impersonal and socially detached (FI 3)

Favor occupations in which workingwith others is not essential such asastronomy or physics (FI 4)

Be impersonal and socially detached (FI 5)

Use global defences such as repressionand denial (FD 1)

Be influenced by authority figures or bypeers (FD 2)

Have a strong interest in people andrespond to people's emotionalexpressions and like to have peoplearound her/him (FD 3)

Prefer occupations which requireinvolvement with others such aselementary school teaching, selling orrehabilitation (FD 4)

Have a strong interest in people andrespond to people's emotionalexpressions and like to have peoplearound him/her (FD 5)

Types of Analyses

To investigate differences in overall ratings across FDI characteristics, a multivariateanalysis of variance was used with the FD and FI students for the 10 overall itemsbeing the dependent variables, and the teachers' cognitive style being the independentvariable. The differences in students' ratings between FD and FI characteristics wereinvestigated using multivariate analyses of variance. Finally, a multivariate analysis ofteachers' feelings for their FD and FI children was performed.

TABLE II. F statistic for FDI characteristics based on Wilks Lambda (df= 5,835)

Source of variation

Teachers' Cognitive Style (T) x SexT X S X FDI Characteristics (F)T x F

Wilks'Lambda

(S) 0.980.970.91

TABLE III. Univariate difference for FDI characteristics

FDI characteristic

TxSFI 2 v. FD 2FI 4 v. FD 4

TxSxFFI 1 v. FD 1FI 3 v. FD 3

T x FFI 4 v. FD 4FI 5 v. FD 5

F

8.8710.11

5.719.38

57.8524.55

F p

3.83 0.0024.99 0.000

15.95 0.000

(df= 5,835)

Significance

0.0030.002

0.0170.002

0.0000.000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Student Ranking of Teacher Characteristics 329

Results

The data analysis consisted of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) withunivariate tests (ANOVAs) on each dependent variable. The results from the repeatedmeasures MANOVA are presented in Table II-VI. F statistic for FDI characteristicsbased on Wilks Lambda are displayed on Table II, univariate difference for FDIcharacteristics are presented in Table III, MANOVA for total ratings for FDIcharacteristics are displayed in Table IV, means and standard deviations for thestudents' ratings for the FD and FI characteristics they prefer in a teacher aredisplayed in Tables V and VI.

TABLE IV. Multivariate analysis of variance for total ratings for FDIcharacteristics and teachers' cognitive style (df= 1,844)

The repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for thestudents' preference for the FDI teacher characteristics was found to be significant bythe Wilks' Lambda Criterion (See Table II). Significant univariate F ratios arepresented in Table III. Significant interactions were found for

(1) the teachers' cognitive style and sex (p<0.01);(2) the teachers' cognitive style, sex, and the FDI teacher characteristics (p<0.001);(3) the teachers' cognitive style and the FDI teacher characteristics (p<0.001).

TABLE V. Students' ratings between FD and FI teacher characteristics according to sex andteachers' cognitive style

Source of variation F p

FDI characteristics (F) 121.92 0.000Teachers'cognitive style (T)X.F 14.37 0.000Sex(S)x.F 0.12 0.732T x S x F 8.51 0.004

Teachers

Field-independent Field-dependent

Characteristics Male Female Male Femalefor .

FD1 X SD X SD X SD X SD

FI 1 1.60 0.68 1.68 0.75 1.66 0.76 1.66 0.68FI 2 1.69 0.67 1.57 0.69 1.72 0.77 1.77 0.74FI 3 1.68 0.72 1.51 0.72 1.75 0.78 1.80 0.74FI 4 1.82 0.72 1.74 0.68 1.75 0.75 1.96 0.72FI 5 1.75 0.74 1.78 0.77 1.74 0.77 1.98 0.82

FD 1 1.80 0.83 2.00 0.88 1.96 0.84 1.83 0.73FD 2 1.81 0.75 1.97 0.77 1.91 0.82 1.88 0.71FD 3 2.31 0.80 2.65 0.64 2.02 0.83 2.01 0.77F D 4 1.92 0.75 2.05 0.83 2.05 0.82 2.00. 0.74F D 5 2.41 0.76 2.37 0.77 2.11 0.82 .2.17 0.77

1 Refer to Table I for the different items

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

330 O. N. Saracho

The interaction of the teachers' cognitive style and sex indicated that females preferredthat FI teachers be influenced by authority or by peers and like to teach (X—2.05),but males preferred the latter characteristic (like to teach) for FD teachers (^=2.05).The interaction of the teachers' cognitive style, sex and the FDI teacher characteristicsindicated that:

(1) female students preferred that FI teachers would have both FI and FD character-istics where FI teachers would employ special defenses (i.e. intellectualisation andisolation) and use global defences (i.e. repression and denial);

(2) female students preferred that FD teachers would be impersonal and sociallydetached, but preferred that FI teachers would have a strong interest in people,would respond to people's emotional expressions and like to have people aroundher/him;

(3) female students preferred that FD teachers would be impersonal and sociallydetached, but male students preferred that FI teachers have a strong interest inpeople and respond to people's emotional expressions and like to have peoplearound him/her.

TABLE VI. Students' ratings between the total for FD and FIteacher characteristics according teachers' cognitive style

FDITraits

FI totalFD total

Field

X

9.0210.28

independent

SD

2.452.63

Field

X

8.3210.72

dependent

SD

2.632.26

The interaction of the teachers' cognitive style and the FDI teacher characteristicsindicated that:

(1) FD teachers (Z=1.86) more than FI teachers (AT=1.78) needed to teach themabout abstract topics such as stars and experiments;

(2) FD teachers (X=2.03) more than FI teachers (X=1.99) needed to like teaching;(3) FD teachers (-Y=1.86) more than FI teachers (X=1.77) needed to be more

impersonal and socially detached;(4) FI teachers (Z=2.39) more than FD teachers (X=2.14) needed to play and work

more with children.

The results of the MANOVA using the FDI statements as dependent variablesdemonstrated statistically significant differences between the students' responses forthe FD and FI teacher characteristics. Table II shows two interactions:

(1) totals for the FD and FI preferred teacher characteristics by teachers' cognitivestyle;

(2) individual FD and FI preferred teacher characteristics based on the sex of thestudents by teachers' cognitive style.

The first interaction indicates that FI teacher characteristics were preferred more forFI teachers and FD teacher characteristics were preferred more for FD teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Student Ranking of Teacher Characteristics 331

Discussion

The present study examined whether FD and FI students would systematically reflecta greater preference for task or socially-orientated characteristics of teachers. Theresults showed that different characteristics were selected based on the cognitive styleof the teacher.

Renninger & Snyder (1983) found that FD teachers were more 'satisfied with' and'enjoy more' their students, give their students higher grades and perceive theirstudents as exerting 'more meaningful effort'. Renninger & Snyder's (1983) datasuggest that the FD students are sensitive to some differences associated with teacherstyle and that they find more satisfying and enjoyable their interactions with FDteachers.

Dor-Shave & Peleg (1989) studied the pupils' designation of the person possessingsuch cognitive style as a 'good teacher'. They found the FI teachers received thehighest evaluation. Apparently, the FI teachers were the ones who were most liked.They concluded that the more FI teachers are better liked than the FD teachers.

Marshall (1985) studied the clients preference for counselors whose counselingprocess corresponded to their own learning styles. She found that the clients did notprefer the counseling approach that matched their learning style. However, clients whowere more abstract learners preferred either the rational or the behavioral approaches,whereas clients who were more concrete learners preferred client-centered or experien-tial approaches.

Pettigrew et al. (1985) compared the students' rating of teaching performance tothose whose preferences for learning styles were strongly matched and stronglymismatched with their instructors' preference of teaching style. They found thatstylistic matching does not produce higher ratings due to the reported relationshipsbetween higher ratings and greater achievement, and between greater achievement andmatched styles.

Educational Implications

These results need to be considered from the educators' point of view. FD or FIstudents may be at a disadvantage in the classroom if they are with a teacher who hasthe cognitive style characteristics that they do not care for.

In summary, the results indicate that individual differences in the FDI character-istics influence the perception of the students' satisfaction, which can influence theirperformance in the classroom (Renninger & Snyder, 1983). Recognition of thesedifferences and some appreciation for their effects deserve attention in any attempt tostructure classroom learning experiences. Instructional strategies and the interpersonalclassroom atmosphere can benefit from sensitivity to the influence of student andteacher cognitive style outlined in this research.

An individual's learning style is a composite of several variables (i.e. personality,cognitive style). Therefore, learning style needs to be conceptualised in terms ofdeeply embedded structures within the individual. The notion that one's learning styleis the result of deeply embedded structures suggest that is somewhat stable. Onceprospective teachers understand the theoretical concepts and constructs of their ownlearning, they can begin to identify those learning behaviors in themselves and in thestudents they are instructing which reflect these deeply embedded structures (Lyons,1985).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

332 O. N. Saracho

REFERENCES

ANASTASI, A. (1988) Psychological testing (New York, Macmillan).BRODZINSKY, D.M. (1982) Relationship between cognitive style and cognitive development: A 2-year

longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 18, pp. 617-626.COATES, S. (1972) Preschool Embedded Figures Test (Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press).DOR-SHAVE, Z. & PELEG, R. (1989) Mobile field-independence and rating as a 'good teacher'. Educational

Psychology, 9(2), pp. 149-163.FRANK, B.M. (1983) Flexibility of information processing and the memory of field-independent and field-

dependent learners, Journal of Research and Personality, 21, pp. 89-96.KIEWRA, K.A. & FRANK, B.M. (1988) Encoding and external-storage effects of personal lecture notes,

skeletal notes, and detailed notes for field-independent and field-dependent learners, Journal of Educa-tional Research, 81(3), pp. 143-148.

LYONS, C.A. (1985) The relationship between prospective teachers' learning preference/style and teachingpreference/style. Educational and Psychological Research, 5(4), pp. 275-297.

MAHLIOS, M. (1981) Effects of cognitive style on patterns of dyadic classroom interaction, Journal ofExperimental Education, 49, pp. 147-157.

MARSHALL, E.A. (1985) Relationship between client-learning style and preference for counselor approach,Counselor Education and Supervision, 24(4), pp. 353-399.

NIAZ, M. (1989) The role of cognitive style and its influence on proportional reasoning, Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 26(3), pp. 221-235.

NUMMEDAL, S.G. & COLLEA, F.P. (1981) Field independence, task ambiguity and performance on aproportional task, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), pp. 255-260.

OLTMAN, P., RASKIN, E. & WITKIN, H.A. (1971) The Group Embedded Figures Test (Palo Alto, CA;Consulting Psychologists Press).

PACKER, J. & BAIN, J.D. (1978) Cognitive style and teacher-student compatibility, Journal of EducationPsychology, 70, pp. 864-871.

PARAMO, M.F. & TINAJERO, C. (1990) Field dependence/independence and performance in school: Anargument against neutrality of cognitive style, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, pp. 1079-1087.

PETTIGREW, F.E., BAYLESS, M.A., ZAKRAJECK, D.B. & GOC-KARP, G. (1985) Compatibility of students'learning and teaching styles on their ratings of college teaching, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61,pp. 1215-1220.

RENNINGER, K.A. & SNYDER, S.S. (1983) Effects of cognitive style on perceived satisfaction and perform-ance among students and teachers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, pp. 668-676.

SARACHO, O.N. (1984) The Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test as a Measure of field-dependence/indepen-dence, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, pp. 887-892.

SARACHO, O.N. (1985) A modification in scoring the ABC Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,pp. 154-155.

SARACHO, O.N. (1986) Validation of two cognitive measures to assess field-dependence/independence,Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, pp. 255-263.

SARACHO, O.N. (1987) The match and mismatch of students' and teachers' cognitive styles: A case study oftwo kindergarten classrooms, Early Child Development and Care, 29(2), pp. 209-238.

SARACHO, O.N. (1988) Cognitive style and early childhood practice, in: B. SPODEK, O. N. SARACHO &D. L. PETERS (Eds), Professionalism and the early childhood practitioners, pp. 173-188 (New York,Teachers College Press).

SARACHO, O.N. (1989) The early childhood teachers' cognitive styles and their instructional behaviors, EarlyChild Development and Care, 49, pp. 99-109.

SARACHO, O.N. & SPODEK, B. (1981) Teachers' cognitive styles and their educational implications,Educational Forum, 45, pp. 153-159.

WITKIN, H.A., DYK, R.B., FATERSON, H.F., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & KARP, S.A. (1974) Psychological

differentiation: Studies of development (New York, Wiley).WITKIN, H.A., LEWIS, H.B., HERTZMAN, M., MACHOVER, K., MEISSNER, P.B. & WAPNER, S. (1972)

Personality through perception: An experimental and clinical study (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press).WITKIN, H.A., MOORE, C.A., GOODENOUGH, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (1977) Field-dependent and field-

independent cognitive styles and their educational implications, Review of Educational Research, 47(1),pp. 1-64.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

04:

19 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014