No abstract

Background. It has long been recognised that field dependence‐independence is likely to have important educational implications. Aims. In the work presented here, the relationship between academic achievement and field dependence‐independence cognitive style was examined. We tried to avoid some of the deficiencies of research carried out to date. Sample. We analysed various subjects of the school curriculum in a single sample of 408 students (215 boys and 193 girls) aged between 13 and 16. Method. We considered the bidimensional character of field dependence‐independence by using a test of perception of the upright (the Rod and Frame Test) and a restructuring ability test (the Embedded Figures Test). In addition, we examined possible mediation by the variable ‘sex’ in the above‐mentioned relationship. Multivariate analysis of covariance, with the score in Cattell's Culture‐Fair Intelligence Test as covariate, was used to investigate differences in academic achievement between field‐dependent and field‐independent students, once effect of intelligence had been removed. Results. Results indicate that field‐independent boys and girls performed better than field‐dependent ones in all of the subjects considered, although this superiority was only manifested in the cognitive dimension of field dependence‐independence, evaluated by the embedded figures test. Conclusions. Field dependence‐independence is related to overall academic achievement.

Field dependence-independence was originally conceived as a neutral style dimension, in that field-dependent subjects were considered to be as well-adapted to their environment as field--independent subjects. Subsequent authors, however, questioned this assumption ofneutrality, on the grounds thatfield-independent subjects generally perform better in certain intellectual tasks. Such findings provoked interest in the possible repercussions offield dependenceindependencefor education. Here, we review research into the possible effects of FDI on achievement at school. In general, field-independent subjects perform better than field-dependent subjects, whether assessment is of specific disciplines or across the board. We discuss possible explanationsfor this difference in performance.The earliest research into cognitive styles was carried out by members of the "New Look" movement, a group of psychologists who were concerned that traditional models of perception placed insufficient emphasis on the individual. In the course of research into the contribution o:fvisual and postural cues to perception of the vertical, Asch (1948a, 1948b) found that some subjects consistently tended to use only one or another type of cue. Subjects who used visual cues were designated "field-dependent", while those who used postural (i.e., vestibular, tactile and kinesthetic) cues were designated "field-independent". In its earliest formulation, field dependence-independence (FDI) was conceived as a visual--postural dimension specifically relating to perception of the vertical.More general interpretations were soon to follow. The task developed by Witkin began to be viewed as a measure of the subject's ability to perceive individual elements within an organized perceptual field: according to this point of view, field-independent subjects are those with a greater capacity to break perceptual information down into its component parts and to focus attention on those parts which are relevant, without being distracted by the context. In contrast, field-dependent subjects are those with a greater difficulty to disembed parts from This review was supported by a grant from the Xunta de Galicia, XUGA 21106A91.