Choice 评论

Current discussion about cognitive styles and education has been influenced primarily by Howard Gardner (Multiple Intelligences, CH, Oct'93). Saracho reintroduces the notion of field/dependence independence (FDI) as an educational tool. Although FDI is supposed to represent a continuum, Saracho uses FD and FI as nonneutral opposing poles. For the author field independence is the preferred style for success in school. The author's limited use of references outside of the FDI research literature raises questions about how this model relates to contemporary changes in schools; most of the research cited is from the 1970s and '80s and, except for the author's, focuses on older children. Thus relevance to early childhood education is not evident. Adding to the confusion, Saracho makes statements about preschoolers' developmental progression from field dependence to field independence and the ability of FD and FI teachers to learn each other's techniques. When both matching and mismatching teachers' and children's cognitive styles have positive results for learning, the discriminatory power of the construct seems compromised. Though well meaning, this repetitious book is not recommended. Morgan's volume also falls short of the mark, despite its many fine aspects. The author provides historical and philosophical background for his discussion of cognitive style, but his reason for including some material is not always clear to this reviewer. Individual sections of the book are fascinating and informative--the chapter dealing with hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder is absorbing and the author briefly discusses multiple intelligences--but the book does not seem to have a coherent line of thought or a particular point of view. The author seems to be trying to pull together the various theories and relate research to them. Morgan's thesis appears to be that many children's problems would be alleviated if teachers would recognize various cognitive styles, and he expresses justifiable concern that the various writers seem unaware of each other's work. He cites research on matching teacher's styles to students, but he dilutes his argument with digressions. The concluding chapter does not pull together the others parts of the book as much as present a discussion about the ways in which language and constructs are used politically to confuse students. S. Sugarman Bennington College