Premium
Educational implications of field dependence‐independence: in answer to Bagley and Mallick
Author(s) -
Tinajero Carolina,
Páramo M. Fernanda
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01314.x
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , cognitive style , psychology , independence (probability theory) , field (mathematics) , style (visual arts) , value (mathematics) , cognition , positive economics , cognitive psychology , epistemology , social psychology , economics , mathematics , statistics , paleontology , history , philosophy , archaeology , neuroscience , pure mathematics , biology
Background . This article replies to some of the comments made by Bagley & Mallick (1998) about our investigation (Tinajero & Páramo, 1997). Aims . To clarify some of Bagley and Mallick's comments about our investigation, and to defend alternative interpretations about some aspects which refer to field dependent‐independent cognitive style (FDI) mentioned by the authors, such as the overlapping between measures of cognitive style and ability, and the implications the latter has in an educational context. Methods . A revision of theoretical arguments and empirical evidence about the questions which are dealt with. Conclusion . The generalisation of the results of our study about the relationship between FDI and academic achievement seems to be feasible in the light of data from previous studies carried out with samples of very different origin. Investigation into FDI takes place alongside theoretical debates about aspects such as its adaptive value or its overlapping with intelligence. These debates remain open.