Cognitive Style:

cognitive style or thinking style is a concept used in cognitive psychology to describe the way
individuals think, perceive and remember information.

There are three very important cognitive styles: leveling-sharpening, field-dependence/field-

independence, and reflectivity-impulsivity. Cognitive styles are distinct from individual
intelligence, but they may affect personality development and how individuals learn and apply
information

Leveling and Sharpening

Leveling and sharpening is a cognitive style that represents the way in which an individual uses
previous memories when attempting to assimilate new information with prior knowledge. This
cognitive style was described in the mid-1950s and was studied by Philip Holzman and George
Klein, among others. Prior to the 1990s, the Squares Test, which was developed by the
Menninger Foundation, was one of the methods of identifying levelers and sharpeners.
People who are levelers tend to select many memories from the past in an attempt to clarify and
categorize newly acquired information
Sharpeners, on the other hand, seem to select fewer memories when processing new knowledge.

Field-Dependence and Field-Independence

Another area where individuals show differences in their abilities to discriminate events or
visual, auditory, or tactile cues from their surrounding environments is known as field-
dependence/field-independence. Herman Witkin conducted much of the original research in this
area in the 1950s.

A field-dependent person has difficulty finding a geometric shape that is embedded or "hidden"
in a background with similar (but not identical) lines and shapes. The conflicting patterns distract
the person from identifying the given figure. A person who is field-independent can readily
identify the geometric shape, regardless of the background in which it is set. This manner of
interpretation, however, is not limited to visual cues. Many researchers are studying auditory and
other sensory perception abilities that may vary from person to person.

There is also a strong connection between this cognitive style and social interactions. People who
are field-dependent are frequently described as being very interpersonal and having a well-
developed ability to read social cues and to openly convey their own feelings. Others describe
them as being very warm, friendly, and personable. Interestingly, Witkin and Donald
Goodenough, in their 1981 book Cognitive Styles, explained that this may be due to a lack of
separation between the self and the environment (or "field") on some level
Field-dependent people notice a lack of structure in the environment (if it exists) and are more
affected by it than other people.

By contrast, individuals who are field-independent use an "internal" frame of reference and can
easily impose their own sense of order in a situation that is lacking structure.

Women are more likely to be field-dependent, whereas men are frequently field-independent.

Specifically of concern to educators is the discovery that field-dependent children do not do as

well in large group settings or class activities where the lessons are not highly structured.

There are also indications that these same individuals do not perform as well on open-ended
questions as compared to students who are field-independent.

Reflectivity and Impulsivity

Reflectivity and impulsivity are polar ends of a spectrum in a third and very substantial cognitive
style. Studies in this domain began in the early 1960s with several researchers, such as Jerome
Kagan. One of the methods for testing this cognitive style involves administration of the
Matching Familiar Figures Test, which requires subjects to view a picture of an object and then
attempt to match the object when presented with the same object in a group of similar objects.
The test is then scored according to the time required to identify the objects and the accuracy of
identification.Neil Salkind and John Wright have studied scoring measures for this cognitive
style. People who are slower than the median, but score more accurately than the median, are
considered to be "reflective." In a classroom, these would typically be the students who take
extended time on a task and produce very accurate work

Those who test faster than the median but score below the median of accuracy are "impulsive."
These individuals are frequently described as students who rush through assignments, frequently
missing the correct answers. In addition, impulsive students do not consider as many alternative
answers when presented with open-ended questions as compared to reflective students.

Several studies indicate, however, that the traditional classroom favors the reflective students
over the impulsive ones. Specific to education, studies have found that students who are placed
with a reflective teacher tend to score more reflectivity at the end of the year than at the
beginning, while students placed with an impulsive teacher score higher levels of impulsivity at
the end of the year. This indicates that there is some environmental influence on the level of
reflectivity-impulsivity and its expression in student behavior.

What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Bloom’s Taxonomy is a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators
set for their students (learning objectives). The taxonomy was proposed in 1956 by
Benjamin Bloom, an educational psychologist at the University of Chicago. The
terminology has been recently updated to include the following six levels of learning.
These 6 levels can be used to structure the learning objectives, lessons, and
assessments of your course. :
1. Remembering: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from
long‐term memory.
2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages
through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing,
and explaining.
3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure for executing, or implementing.
4. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts
relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through
differentiating, organizing, and attributing.
5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking
and critiquing.
6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional
whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating,
planning, or producing.

Like other taxonomies, Bloom’s is hierarchical, meaning that learning at the higher
levels is dependent on having attained prerequisite knowledge and skills at lower
levels. You will see Bloom’s Taxonomy often displayed as a pyramid graphic to help
demonstrate this hierarchy. We have updated this pyramid into a “cake-style” hierarchy
to emphasize that each level is built on a foundation of the previous levels.
How Bloom’s works with learning objectives

Fortunately, there are “verb tables” to help identify which action verbs align with each
level in Bloom’s Taxonomy.
You may notice that some of these verbs on the table are associated with multiple
Bloom’s Taxonomy levels. These “multilevel-verbs” are actions that could apply to
different activities. For example, you could have an objective that states “At the end of
this lesson, students will be able to explain the difference between H2O and OH-.” This
would be an understanding level objective. However, if you wanted the students to be
able to “…explain the shift in the chemical structure of water throughout its various
phases.” This would be an analyzing level verb.
Adding to this confusion, you can locate Bloom’s verb charts that will list verbs at levels
different from what we list below. Just keep in mind that it is the skill, action or activity
you will teach using that verb that determines the Bloom’s Taxonomy level.

Bloom’s
Key Verbs (keywords) Example Learning Objective
Level

design, formulate, build, By the end of this lesson, the student

invent, create, compose, will be able to design an original
Create
generate, derive, modify, homework problem dealing with the
develop. principle of conservation of energy.

By the end of this lesson, the student

choose, support, relate,
will be able to determine whether
determine, defend, judge,
using conservation of energy or
Evaluate grade, compare, contrast,
conservation of momentum would be
argue, justify, support,
more appropriate for solving a
convince, select, evaluate.
dynamics problem.

classify, break down,

By the end of this lesson, the student
categorize, analyze,
Analyze will be able to differentiate between
diagram, illustrate, criticize,
potential and kinetic energy.
simplify, associate.

calculate, predict, apply,

By the end of this lesson, the student
solve, illustrate, use,
Apply will be able to calculate the kinetic
demonstrate, determine,
energy of a projectile.
model, perform, present.
 describe, explain,
By the end of this lesson, the student
paraphrase, restate, give
will be able to describe Newton’s
Understand original examples of,
three laws of motion to in her/his
summarize, contrast,
own words
interpret, discuss.

list, recite, outline, define, By the end of this lesson, the student
Remember name, match, quote, recall, will be able to recite Newton’s three
identify, label, recognize. laws of motion.