Robert J. Sternberg - Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles

Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles

Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles

Edited by

Robert Sternberg

Yale University

Li-fang Zhang

University of Hong Kong

Copyright 2001 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm, retrieval system, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher.

First published by

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue

Mahwah, NJ 07430

This edition published 2011 by Routledge

Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group

711 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Routledge

Taylor & Francis Group

2 Park Square, Milton Park

Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Cover design by Kathryn Houghtaling Lacey

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

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.

ISBN 0-8058-3430-3 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN 0-8058-3431-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Cognitive styles. 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Human information processing. 4. Learning, Psychology of.

I. Sternberg, Robert J. II. Zhang, Li-fang. III. Series.

BF311.P375 2001

153dc21

00-059606

CIP

Contents

Robert J. Sternberg and Elena L. Grigorenko

Joseph S. Renzulli and David Yun Dai

Richard Riding

John Biggs

Noel Entwistle, Velda McCune, and Paul Walker

Gillian M. Boulton-Lewis, Ference Marton, and Lynn A. Wilss

David Watkins

Li-fang Zhang and Robert J. Sternberg

David A. Kolb, Richard E. Boyatzis, and Charalampos Mainemelis

Robert J. Sternberg

Preface

Traditionally, many psychologists and educators have believed that peoples successes and failures are attributable mainly to individual differences in abilities. For the past few decades, however, investigators have been studying the roles of thinking, learning, and cognitive styles in performance with both academic and nonacademic settings. Although these three kinds of styles may be viewed as overlapping historically, they have been conceptualized in different ways. Consider, for example, a topic in school such as the Civil War in the United States.

Learning styles might be used to characterize how one prefers to learn about the Civil War. Would one rather learn about it visually (by reading) or auditorily (by lectures)? Or perhaps one would prefer an active form of learning (simulating it) versus a passive form (reading or listening to material about it).

Thinking styles might be used to characterize how one prefers to think about material as one is learning it or after one already knows it. For example, would one rather think about global issues or local issues? Would one prefer to evaluate what one has learned or to go beyond what one has learned?

Cognitive styles might be used to characterize ways of cognizing the information. For example, does one tend to be a splitter, seeing each battle as a distinct entity, or as a lumper, viewing many or all of the battles as similar acts of war? Does one tend to be impulsive in jumping to conclusions about the war or to be reflective? The cognitive styles tend to be closer to personality than are the other types of styles.

In general, abilities refer to things one can do, such as to execute skills or skill combinations (strategies). Styles refer to preferences in the use of abilities. For example, in one theory (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough and Karp, 1962), people with a field-dependent style tend to be unable to separate things to which they attend from the context in which they attend to these things, where people with a field-dependent style are able to make such a separation. In another well-known theory, a deep-processing strategy is to use ones abilities to the utmost in processing material to a great depth, whereas a surface-processing strategy may involve the use of the same abilities, but to process material to be learned in a more superficial way (Marton & Booth, 1997). In yet another theory, a person with a legislative style likes to use his or her abilities to generate new ideas, whereas a person with a judicial style prefers to use his or her abilities to analyze existing ideas (Sternberg, 1997). Research styles has indicated that styles account for individual differences in performance that go well beyond abilities.

Theory and research on styles went out of fashion for a number of years. Several reasons contributed to this lapse of interest (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). First, some of the early theories presented styles that were not clearly distinguishable from abilities, on the one hand, or personality, on the other. Second, many of the early theories were of isolated styles that made little contact with other psychological literature. Third, the quality of some of the early empirical research was variable. But styles have reemerged as an area of interest because new theories better differentiate styles from abilities and make more contact with the other psychological literature. Recent research is also, in many cases, more careful and conclusive than some of the older research.

Styles are of interest to educators because they predict academic performance in ways that go beyond abilities (Marton & Booth, 1997). They are also of interest because when teachers take styles into account, they help improve both instruction and assessment. Moreover, teachers who take styles into account can show sensitivity to cultural and individual diversity that is so often absent in the classroom.

For example, there is quantitative evidence that teachers tend to think students are better matches to their own styles than the students really are. Perhaps as consequence, the teachers evaluate more positively students who match their own style of thinking, regardless of the students abilities or achievements. It also has been found that styles predict academic success incrementally better than do ability tests (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997); Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995).

Our student populations are more diverse than ever before, so the issue of thinking and learning styles has become important as it never has been before. What can we do in the face of such diversity to maintain the quality of the education we provide students? One thing we can do is to take into account students diverse styles of thinking and learning.

Although styles are primarily of interest in education, they are also of great interest in business, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) is one of the leading tests used in business for selection and placement.

To prepare this book, we asked leading worldwide experts in the field of styles to contribute chapters on the topics of thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. We had an overwhelmingly positive response, enabling us to bring together the leaders in this field. We asked only people who have contributed serious theory and published empirical data, or both, not individuals whose work is primarily commercial, or who implement the theories of others but who have not proposed theories or collected data of their own. We have also sought and achieved international representation so as to include many of the major leaders in the field of styles.